Harry Potter: Character Analysis

There is another quote, perhaps by Lupin following the match. I don't feel like looking it up at the moment - sorry - but I've been studying and if I open a anothef book I'll likely shred it. :lol:. So to save my library, I will just say that it was still a big blobish thing at that point via the other quote - but it was unusual because it was not the usual poof Harry had made prior to that - it started to take shape. A stag is not an unusual form. I'll look it up another time.

I agree that Harry's Patronus at the match was probably not fully formed, but must have been recognisable enough for those who knew about Prongs, such as Dumbledore, to join the dots. I also think Lupin recognised it too as at the end of the match he says to Harry; "That was quite some Patronus," said a voice in Harry's ear. Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin, who looked both shaken and pleased. I think Lupin was shaken here because he recognised the form of Prongs within Harry's Patronus.


So he thinks dad, feels the love, the patronus is a stag because they share characteristics (but it would be no matter when he did it, because "prongs" represents him too, not just his dad), and it is strengthened by the love flowing through him at that time, imo.

Yeah, this is the way I see it.:) For me, I thought one of the themes of the story was that ordinary people can do extaordinary things through the power of love. Harry was very ordinary in all his magical abilities, but had a strong ability to love, which is a powerful magic of it's own.

I would disagree - I always had the impression that Harry was very ordinary & that is what makes him so special imo. Apart from having a shard of Voldemort's soul (& the events that lead to it) and his ability to love dispite his up bringing of course, there is nothing remarkable about him that I can think of. He can speak parseltounge becasue he has some of Voldemorts soul but appart from that and the patronus I can't think of him excelling in magic in an extrodinary way (as we are lead to belive Dumbledore & Voldemort did in thier youths), his OWL grades are on the good side of average but certainly not extraodinary.

Personally I can only think of the Patronus as an example of him using exreamly powerful magic for his age - and it is a spell taught to him early, we see later that other students are capable of learning it much earlier than they would ordinarily be taught it. Admitedly the Partonus he conjured at the end of PoA was very powerful - but to me that is because his 'special power' is love not because his gereral magical ability is extrodinary. :)

I would agree, except with the premise you disagreed with. I do feel that Harry was a very powerful wizard for his age. What I agree with is that it wasn't due to magical ability. He was like other wizards in that regard, excelling in some magics, but average or not so good at other magics. He was learning the patronus, but at about the rate and speed of the other kids we saw learning it - perhaps even slower due to facing the boggart!dementor while learning it.

What made Harry more powerful was the love. But I don't separate it from magical ability because Dumbledore told Voldemort that "love" was more powerful than magic. JKR then went on to show Harry filled with love and doing extraordinary things (like issuing the mega patronus - twice in POA and DH; like being filled with love and Voldy having to flee from his possession, etc.) - but she also showed him extending love in ways others were not shown to do, like with magical creatures. That also served to save him on several occassion (like when Snape was attacking him and Buckbeak came, when the balisk was attacking him and Fawkes arrived, when he needed to obtain the loyalty of the dragon to escape Gringotts, etc.)

It wasn't "luck" that Buckbeak came to his rescue - nor that Fawkes came along - or that he was able to get the dragon to give them a ride, imo. This was part of Harry's unusual ability, imo. Nor was it "luck" that he became selfless and his thoughts turned to love when all else failed, that was a part of his character, shown early on in the series, imo.

Harry didn't recognize this and even when Dumbledore told him about it, he didn't believe it. Everyone loves and he saw nothing at all to distinguish himself in that regard - until DH. In DH, he finally understood and believed and told Voldemort that yes, love would play a role in his success. I agree that it is something everyone could potentially do - and even did to to some extent, perhaps they could even learn to do it to the extent Harry did. But Harry did it innately - and that is what distinguished him - he didn't have to "try" because that is just who he was. In the end, this is what made him the most powerful wizard of his age, imo - he had innately mastered a power that was greater than magic - love. Love could overpower magic, strengthen magic, and mold magic and what's more, it could forge other wondrous things like loyalty and faith, - that was why it was greater than magic in the end, imo.

I would disagree - I always had the impression that Harry was very ordinary & that is what makes him so special imo. Apart from having a shard of Voldemort's soul (& the events that lead to it) and his ability to love dispite his up bringing of course, there is nothing remarkable about him that I can think of. He can speak parseltounge becasue he has some of Voldemorts soul but appart from that and the patronus I can't think of him excelling in magic in an extrodinary way (as we are lead to belive Dumbledore & Voldemort did in thier youths), his OWL grades are on the good side of average but certainly not extraodinary.

I would have to completely disagree with this, and please don't take this offensively as I don't mean it scathingly but I disagree for two reasons:

1. The concept that academic success is the only thing that correlates to being a powerful or talented wizard is quite naive.

2. There's many different ways of learning things in the world, including magic in HP, and not everyone learns well from the generalised academic procedure: Harry learns better from practical uses of magic and it shows because his grades are generally highest in classes where there is practical use of spells.

In addition, a large part of the reason that Harry's grades aren't excellent is because he simply doesn't have the time or the interest. While everyone else's (teenage Dumbledore and Riddle included) biggest concerns were study and doing well at school, Harry was being hunted by the most powerful Dark Wizard of all time. He was thrust into situations such as the Tri-Wizard Tournament, or having his mind torn into by Voldemort during OotP, or having additional private lessons with Dumbledore in HBP + attempting to procure the memories; in short he had far too many 'extra-curricular' activities to ever excel academically.

In all honesty, Harry could've been the brightest wizard ever but you still wouldn't have seen him produce marks like Hermione because he was too stressed, too pre-occupied also not as intellectually motivated as Dumbledore or Voldemort. That's not an indication of intelligence or talent but time and interest, or lack thereof. This may sound funny but I can personally attest to this because when I was at school my grades were good but not spectacular, and I slacked and was quite honestly bored with the majority of my subjects and the way in which they were taught - I wasn't interested. Even when I went to University my grades weren't great and I disliked the experience so much I left. It was only once I realised that I was a self-learner, and operated best teaching myself, that academically I could perform properly (and subsequently took up an Open Uni degree!) Some people just don't learn the same way as the general 'crowd' and Harry is similar to this.

Regardless, even in-spite of this we see Harry perform some extraordinary magic for his age, and we see many characters comment that he has produced magic far beyond his years (for example, Hermione tells Harry during OotP that Krum told her, in GoF, that Harry's magic is way beyond his school year).

In PoA, he conjures a corporeal Patronus at age 13, virtually by himself as up to that point he'd only produced vapour; in OotP, he wandlessly casts Lumos vs. the Dementors and he is the only DA member untouched in the Battle of the Dept of Mysteries (this is against adult Death Eaters here); in HBP, he wordlessly casts a couple of spells and apparates with Dumbledore, being second only to Hermione.

I expect that if he had had a more stress-free childhood, and perhaps grown up with knowledge of being a wizard rather than ignorance he would've been far more academically motivated and his 'magic' would've been great.

Personally I can only think of the Patronus as an example of him using exreamly powerful magic for his age - and it is a spell taught to him early, we see later that other students are capable of learning it much earlier than they would ordinarily be taught it. Admitedly the Partonus he conjured at the end of PoA was very powerful - but to me that is because his 'special power' is love not because his gereral magical ability is extrodinary. :)

I don't think this is the case. Love was the motivator, yes, but the same could be said for Dumbledore or the same could be said for Voldemort, just hate/anger instead of love. It's clear that V's magic steps up a notch when he's ****** off.

In all honesty, Harry is hugely underestimated as a wizard by many readers because of the way the book is written - because of the way he is presented. His entire journey is a struggle against wizards he shouldn't be facing off against until he was at least 10 years older, and this struggle often prevents him from studying properly aswell. Generally, that struggle gives off the impression he's struggling because he's mediocre but in truth it's because he is a child; people often forget when reading the books that he's underage. While Dumbledore and Riddle were content with sticking their noses into books, Harry was off saving people, so it's no wonder they came out at the end of Hogwarts more intellectually developed than him.

One thing I would say is that if I were a character in the book after DH, I would've firmly suggested to Harry to go back to Hogwarts for the last year and milk it for what it's worth. Going into the Aurors would've been a lifelong opportunity but spending a 7th year at Hogwarts without any concerns other than study? That can't be replaced.

In all honesty, Harry is hugely underestimated as a wizard by many readers because of the way the book is written - because of the way he is presented. His entire journey is a struggle against wizards he shouldn't be facing off against until he was at least 10 years older, and this struggle often prevents him from studying properly aswell. Generally, that struggle gives off the impression he's struggling because he's mediocre but in truth it's because he is a child; people often forget when reading the books that he's underage. While Dumbledore and Riddle were content with sticking their noses into books, Harry was off saving people, so it's no wonder they came out at the end of Hogwarts more intellectually developed than him.

I agree with some of your points. I don't think Harry's grades - or Ron's for that matter - are a poor reflection on their intelligence. On the contrary, they both do quite well overall in spite of the fact that they don't always put much effort into their studies. That's not to say that they don't put any effort into their studies at all, but they were both prone to putting off doing their homework or studying until the last minute. But that wasn't always due to Harry being under stress because of Voldemort or because he was preoccupied with the current mystery they were trying to solve. A lot of the time, they put school work off in favor of practicing Quidditch - or playing chess or just goofing off in general. In all honesty, I don't think Harry or Ron would have handled school all that differently if the circumstances were different. They were both better with learning things "hands on" rather than studying out of books and learning the theory behind it. So I wouldn't use his performance as a student as a measure of his abilities overall.

However, while I would agree that Harry is by no means a mediocre wizard - and I would say the same for Ron - I would have to disagree that he is an exceptional wizard as well. What makes Harry stand out is not that he has exceptional power or advanced skills. Harry stands out because he is continually put into situations where he is forced to do things that someone his age would not be doing under normal circumstances. And that applies to Ron and Hermione because of their close association with Harry as well - though certainly to a lesser extent because even they aren't put into every situation like that with Harry. In other words, Harry is not more powerful than the other students in his year - he simply got more practice than they did and was put in situations where he had to learn things that they did not.

An example for all three of them would be GOF with the Triwizard Tournament. Because Harry was forced to compete in that tournament, he was put in the situation of learning a lot of defensive spells that he would normally not have learned at that level in his eduation - by association, Ron and Hermione learn those spells as well because they help Harry prepare for the tournament. In that respect, all three of them were given an advantage over the other students in their year because they learned things above and beyond what was being taught in class. Harry compensates for that in OOTP by teaching the DA so those 28 students have an advantage over the rest because they learned things that the rest of the students did not. But both are examples showing that Harry - and some others by association - was put into a situation where he had to learn something that other students did not. It's not a reflection of him having exceptional power, but rather a reflection of him doing what is necessary to survive. And the DA provides the contrast to that by showing that the other students were just as capable as Harry was of learning those things at that level - all they needed was the opportunity to do so.

I would apply that to the Patronus charm as well. Yes, it is purported to be a difficult spell to learn - and Harry certainly had a great deal of difficulty when Lupin was teaching it to him. However, there is no contrast provided with any other student getting that same opportunity. Harry was singled out due to the problems he had with the dementors and asking Lupin for extra help. Had Jo presented that as a situation where Lupin decided to make that part of his lessons and teach the entire class the Patronus charm because the dementors were stationed at Hogwarts and Harry was the only one who could manage it, that would have shown him to have more advanced skill than the other students. But we don't get that comparison. We are shown Harry being singled out and given those lessons privately. Two years later, Harry teaches the students in the DA to do the Patronus charm - and the majority of them are able to learn it and produce a corporeal patronus like Harry does.

That doesn't set Harry apart as being exceptionally powerful or having advanced skills, IMO. I would say that what that establishes within the context of the story is exactly what Dumbledore explained to Harry in HBP - age has a tendency to underestimate youth. The adults decided the patronus charm was too difficult for students at that level to learn - Harry and the DA proved that the adults were wrong because they were able to learn it.

I still feel that JKR was attempting to show that Harry was powerful based on his personal gifts - love/compassion being foremost because he would turn to those emotions innately in his deepest times of trouble, imo. That is why Dumbledore said Harry was a better man than him, imo. I feel that one can learn a lot of magic over time and eventually Harry would do that like other wizards, imo, to help him in his auror duties. However, I think that he was just exceptionally gifted when it came to giving himself over to compassion - and seeing as it was more powerful than magic, it both heightened his magic and allowed him to do things others could not, imo.

I think the way JKR showed this was by showing how others in their deepest times of need turned to magic, fear, anger and all manner of other emotions or actions - but Harry was the one she kept showing as turning to love. For example, the patronus issue was raised: in DH, there were several kids trying to drive away the dementors using their patronuses - but Luna called on Harry to come help them and when he did, his powerful patronus drove them all away at once. We could easily chalk this up to his being the most experienced, however, he had no experience with this when he did it all by himself in POA, prior to ever issuing a fully matured patronus in his life (POA HS). I think JKR was trying to get this point across and all of it helped explain why in the end Harry was able to reach the decision to sacrifice himself for others, although no one was under immediate threat at the time (like Voldy wasn't trying to kill Ron and Harry made the sacrifice as his mum and dad had done - rather it was much more inconclusive as to who might be saved from his sacrifice, imo).

I think it distinguished Harry and while love happened to be Voldemort's bane - I think JKR showed it going much further than that. I was left with the impression that Harry could take on and win any dark lord because in the end, he would make his choices in his deepest times of need based on compassion which would win the day, imo, if Dumbledore was correct about its extraordinary power - and I feel like JKR showed that to be true.

I still feel that JKR was attempting to show that Harry was powerful based on his personal gifts - love/compassion being foremost because he would turn to those emotions innately in his deepest times of trouble, imo. That is why Dumbledore said Harry was a better man than him, imo. I feel that one can learn a lot of magic over time and eventually Harry would do that like other wizards, imo, to help him in his auror duties. However, I think that he was just exceptionally gifted when it came to giving himself over to compassion - and seeing as it was more powerful than magic, it both heightened his magic and allowed him to do things others could not, imo.

I think the way JKR showed this was by showing how others in their deepest times of need turned to magic, fear, anger and all manner of other emotions or actions - but Harry was the one she kept showing as turning to love. For example, the patronus issue was raised: in DH, there were several kids trying to drive away the dementors using their patronuses - but Luna called on Harry to come help them and when he did, his powerful patronus drove them all away at once. We could easily chalk this up to his being the most experienced, however, he had no experience with this when he did it all by himself in POA, prior to ever issuing a fully matured patronus in his life (POA HS). I think JKR was trying to get this point across and all of it helped explain why in the end Harry was able to reach the decision to sacrifice himself for others, although no one was under immediate threat at the time (like Voldy wasn't trying to kill Ron and Harry made the sacrifice as his mum and dad had done - rather it was much more inconclusive as to who might be saved from his sacrifice, imo).

I think it distinguished Harry and while love happened to be Voldemort's bane - I think JKR showed it going much further than that. I was left with the impression that Harry could take on and win any dark lord because in the end, he would make his choices in his deepest times of need based on compassion which would win the day, imo, if Dumbledore was correct about its extraordinary power - and I feel like JKR showed that to be true.

I agree with you about Harry's ability to love - he had a great capacity for love and that did distinguish him from others. But in terms of his actual magical ability - I think he was pretty much on par with everyone else. They all had their strengths and weaknesses after all. But the thing with Harry's patronus - particularly in POA - was that it was not until he realized that he'd seen himself casting the charm that he was really able to do it. And, even then, he was nowhere near the dementors so he was not hampered by the effect they had on him at that time. So, again, Harry was given a couple of advantages there - the knowledge that he'd already done it and being far enough away not to be effected by the dementors at all. Overall, that gives him a great deal of confidence with the Patronus charm.

Jo does have certain people comment on the fact that Harry can do the Patronus charm, but that was presented in a similar manner to the stories in the Daily Prophet about him being "the Chosen One", IMO. Hermione is impressed that he learned in it third year - but he was the only student given that opportunity so we cannot say that none of the others would have been able to do it. Having Harry be the only student taught how to do the charm doesn't prove that he's the only student who could. In OOTP, Jo made a point to have the entire DA learn how to do the charm - but only Harry gets acknowledged for being able to do it during the DADA OWL because nobody knows he taught the DA how to do it. So Harry gets an advantage on his OWL as well - he's the only one given the chance to earn bonus points by producing a corporeal patronus even though the DA had all learned how to do it. So Harry was being recognized for something that was not true at that point - he was not the only student in his year who could do the charm at that point, but a lot of the adults thought that he was and were impressed by it. That added to his "mystique" in being considered "the Chosen One", but it was based on a falsehood.

In DH, it seemed to me that it was the combined effort that fully drove the dementors away - Harry's stag being the largest of the group and his capacity for love is a factor of course, but it was the arrival and Luna, Ernie, and Seamus that turned the tide. A true team effort there - I liked that. :)

I agree with you about Harry's ability to love - he had a great capacity for love and that did distinguish him from others. But in terms of his actual magical ability - I think he was pretty much on par with everyone else. They all had their strengths and weaknesses after all. But the thing with Harry's patronus - particularly in POA - was that it was not until he realized that he'd seen himself casting the charm that he was really able to do it. And, even then, he was nowhere near the dementors so he was not hampered by the effect they had on him at that time. So, again, Harry was given a couple of advantages there - the knowledge that he'd already done it and being far enough away not to be effected by the dementors at all. Overall, that gives him a great deal of confidence with the Patronus charm.

Jo does have certain people comment on the fact that Harry can do the Patronus charm, but that was presented in a similar manner to the stories in the Daily Prophet about him being "the Chosen One", IMO. Hermione is impressed that he learned in it third year - but he was the only student given that opportunity so we cannot say that none of the others would have been able to do it. Having Harry be the only student taught how to do the charm doesn't prove that he's the only student who could. In OOTP, Jo made a point to have the entire DA learn how to do the charm - but only Harry gets acknowledged for being able to do it during the DADA OWL because nobody knows he taught the DA how to do it. So Harry gets an advantage on his OWL as well - he's the only one given the chance to earn bonus points by producing a corporeal patronus even though the DA had all learned how to do it. So Harry was being recognized for something that was not true at that point - he was not the only student in his year who could do the charm at that point, but a lot of the adults thought that he was and were impressed by it. That added to his "mystique" in being considered "the Chosen One", but it was based on a falsehood.

In DH, it seemed to me that it was the combined effort that fully drove the dementors away - Harry's stag being the largest of the group and his capacity for love is a factor of course, but it was the arrival and Luna, Ernie, and Seamus that turned the tide. A true team effort there - I liked that. :)

Right - I get that too. I mean, I wouldn't even have used the patronus incident because frankly, I'm figuring that with an adrenaline rush, all wizards would be able to pull off some pretty big feats of magic that they'd practiced, but hadn't yet mastered. So Harry really didn't even have to have seen himself do it and go throught that whole thinking about dad process for me to feel he could pull it off - technically. I would have been satisfied with the idea of high pressure and adrenaline doing it for him.

But it was JKR who I felt made a point of the love factor. I mean, why use the page space going on about Harry feeling his parents most in his time of need? And later, when Voldemort possessed him, why spend more page space showing Harry's POV and all his love for Sirius (and btw, done overboard in the movie, imo, to get this point across adding in the parents, Lupin, Ron, Hermione, etc.)? And in DH with the patronus again, why not have Harry just shoot his off with the others and the dementors leave? Instead we get still more page space used up with his POV about his thoughts of his friends. In HBP, why have Buckbeak rescue him from Snape after having made a point of the connection Harry forged with his compassion toward him? Or Fawkes come to the rescue in CoS because of his loyalty for Dumbledore which was based on compassion? Or in several books, DH particularly, have Dobby willing to risk his life based on the compassion forged with him? And in OOTP why have Dumbledore go through that long speel about compassion defeating Voldemort and the prophecy chosing Harry for the job, if Harry's compassion wasn't the dominant factor? And why make Harry continually think about loved ones on his way to his death - Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Sirius, his parents, Dumbledore, all went through his thoughts, iirc.

The striking factor here is that this was not done for other people - just the hero. No magical creatures or people, thoughts of love, ghosts, sprits, animals and what not were shown coming to the rescue of others, imo. People did rescue other people - and Harry, and somethings were otherwise explained (his and Voldy's wands being mates, etc.) but to me, only Harry was shown to have these other extraordinary incidents where his love/compassion was stressed where the situation would otherwise be called a lucky break, imo. These are incidents where generally Harry is on his own and in big trouble - and he gets out of it, but not without the POV or talk about love/compassion included, imo.

So it isn't like I need for this to be true. I am not much into a story about a mediocre kid who gets a ton of lucky breaks and has some great friends, but if I felt that is what JKR had written, I would just complain :lol:. But I don't feel that is what she wrote - honestly - based on those examples above, and there are more, imo. It seemed to me that JKR was beating me over the head with this theme in terms of Harry - not just to try to say "love is a wonderful thing" because tons of people were loving and showed love in the books, imo, yet no miracles for them were shown. Either there was more to it, or to me, she used a lot of page space for nothing... And if love is the reason Voldemort would be defeated - and that was all there was to it - then Dumbledore or tons of others should have been able to do it long before. To me, the prophecy is well and good, but it also speaks a truth - there is a reason it foretells that it must be Harry or Neville (the only two kids who meet the requirements), and to me, they were the only two that would have the capacity for what it would take to defeat him. (By that I do mean to say Neville could have replaced Harry if chosen, but his entire life would have been distinct, imo, and his turning to compassion/love in times of need would have been heightened early on, imo.) And btw, in as far as pure magic, I agree that Harry was like the rest, and worse than some actually.

Right - I get that too. I mean, I wouldn't even have used the patronus incident because frankly, I'm figuring that with an adrenaline rush, all wizards would be able to pull off some pretty big feats of magic that they'd practiced, but hadn't yet mastered. So Harry really didn't even have to have seen himself do it and go throught that whole thinking about dad process for me to feel he could pull it off - technically. I would have been satisfied with the idea of high pressure and adrenaline doing it for him.

But it was JKR who I felt made a point of the love factor. I mean, why use the page space going on about Harry feeling his parents most in his time of need? And later, when Voldemort possessed him, why spend more page space showing Harry's POV and all his love for Sirius (and btw, done overboard in the movie, imo, to get this point across adding in the parents, Lupin, Ron, Hermione, etc.)? And in DH with the patronus again, why not have Harry just shoot his off with the others and the dementors leave? Instead we get still more page space used up with his POV about his thoughts of his friends. In HBP, why have Buckbeak rescue him from Snape after having made a point of the connection Harry forged with his compassion toward him? Or Fawkes come to the rescue in CoS because of his loyalty for Dumbledore which was based on compassion? Or in several books, DH particularly, have Dobby willing to risk his life based on the compassion forged with him? And in OOTP why have Dumbledore go through that long speel about compassion defeating Voldemort and the prophecy chosing Harry for the job, if Harry's compassion wasn't the dominant factor? And why make Harry continually think about loved ones on his way to his death - Fred, Tonks, Lupin, Sirius, his parents, Dumbledore, all went through his thoughts, iirc.

The striking factor here is that this was not done for other people - just the hero. No magical creatures or people, thoughts of love, ghosts, sprits, animals and what not were shown coming to the rescue of others, imo. People did rescue other people - and Harry, and somethings were otherwise explained (his and Voldy's wands being mates, etc.) but to me, only Harry was shown to have these other extraordinary incidents where his love/compassion was stressed where the situation would otherwise be called a lucky break, imo. These are incidents where generally Harry is on his own and in big trouble - and he gets out of it, but not without the POV or talk about love/compassion included, imo.

So it isn't like I need for this to be true. I am not much into a story about a mediocre kid who gets a ton of lucky breaks and has some great friends, but if I felt that is what JKR had written, I would just complain :lol:. But I don't feel that is what she wrote - honestly - based on those examples above, and there are more, imo. It seemed to me that JKR was beating me over the head with this theme in terms of Harry - not just to try to say "love is a wonderful thing" because tons of people were loving and showed love in the books, imo, yet no miracles for them were shown. Either there was more to it, or to me, she used a lot of page space for nothing... And if love is the reason Voldemort would be defeated - and that was all there was to it - then Dumbledore or tons of others should have been able to do it long before. To me, the prophecy is well and good, but it also speaks a truth - there is a reason it foretells that it must be Harry or Neville (the only two kids who meet the requirements), and to me, they were the only two that would have the capacity for what it would take to defeat him. (By that I do mean to say Neville could have replaced Harry if chosen, but his entire life would have been distinct, imo, and his turning to compassion/love in times of need would have been heightened early on, imo.) And btw, in as far as pure magic, I agree that Harry was like the rest, and worse than some actually.

Well - as I said before - I do agree with you about Harry's capacity for love. Jo did make a point to emphasize that he stood out from others in that regard. But then I see that as somewhat separate from Harry's magical ability as well - certainly his emotional state is a factor in the strength of whatever spell he is casting, but I think Jo did show that was true for everyone because there are various examples of characters casting powerful spells based on their emotional state at the time.

However, I don't think she made him a complete exception because we do see others doing that as well - particularly in DH. Ron's love for his friends is what allowed him to use the deluminator to eventally find them again - and also what gave him the strength to confront his deepest fears and defeat them when he destroyed the locket. Hermione comes to the rescue of Lavender - from Greyback no less - and I thought it was a nice touch considering they were angry with each other over Ron just one year before. Luna, Ernie, and Seamus come to the trio's rescue with the dementors and it is Luna who enables Harry to cast that final patronus - reminding him that they were still there, fighting so he could find the strength to make the charm work. Even Slughorn has his big moment - charging back in with some of the Slytherins and Charlie Weasley after having gone to get reinforcements and joining McGonagall and Kingsley in dueling with Voldemort himself. So I would have to say that she did show that strong emotions - particularly love - would have a positive effect.

With Harry, I think that she demonstrated that he did stand apart a bit with his "saving people thing" - but I felt that was a matter of his determination and strength of will stemming from his overall compassion towards other people rather than a show of his magical ability. Harry was never really the most qualified person in terms of magical skill - but he was often the most determined to do it because of his capacity for love.

That's what I love about the series. I wouldn't say Harry was mediocre at all - he was certainly skilled as a wizard. But others were shown to be equally as skilled as Harry - or more skilled in some cases. Harry never stood out as being more powerful than anyone else overall. I love the fact that Harry was never made into some all powerful "super wizard" - he was just this normal boy who was put into extraordinary circumstances and rose to the occasion because he had this huge capacity for love. And I loved the fact that she made a point to emphasize that it didn't have to be Harry in the end by showing Neville as "The Boy Who Could Have Been". It really came down to Voldemort underestimating love in general rather than Harry being more powerful. If Voldemort had chosen Neville, the same thing would have happened because Neville also had a huge capacity for love and rose to the occasion magnificently when he was called upon to act. As did many others. Harry stands out only because Voldemort singled him out by choosing him. I love the irony of that. :)

However, I don't think she made him a complete exception because we do see others doing that as well - particularly in DH. Ron's love for his friends is what allowed him to use the deluminator to eventally find them again - and also what gave him the strength to confront his deepest fears and defeat them when he destroyed the locket. Hermione comes to the rescue of Lavender - from Greyback no less - and I thought it was a nice touch considering they were angry with each other over Ron just one year before. Luna, Ernie, and Seamus come to the trio's rescue with the dementors and it is Luna who enables Harry to cast that final patronus - reminding him that they were still there, fighting so he could find the strength to make the charm work. Even Slughorn has his big moment - charging back in with some of the Slytherins and Charlie Weasley after having gone to get reinforcements and joining McGonagall and Kingsley in dueling with Voldemort himself. So I would have to say that she did show that strong emotions - particularly love - would have a positive effect.

Agreed. :tu:

With Harry, I think that she demonstrated that he did stand apart a bit with his "saving people thing" - but I felt that was a matter of his determination and strength of will stemming from his overall compassion towards other people rather than a show of his magical ability. Harry was never really the most qualified person in terms of magical skill - but he was often the most determined to do it because of his capacity for love.

That is how I see it also - and I think others too showed the saving people thing here and there as well.

That's what I love about the series. I wouldn't say Harry was mediocre at all - he was certainly skilled as a wizard. But others were shown to be equally as skilled as Harry - or more skilled in some cases. Harry never stood out as being more powerful than anyone else overall. I love the fact that Harry was never made into some all powerful "super wizard" - he was just this normal boy who was put into extraordinary circumstances and rose to the occasion because he had this huge capacity for love.

I agree with your take on Harry's magical ability, that is how I saw him too. I guess where I disagree with many is in that he wasn't shown to be a super-wizard. I think that is what JKR was going for. I think it is because I saw a lot of familiar clues based on general adventure/fantasy stories - and maybe I am wrong, but it seems like she wanted me to see Harry as 'special' and that attribute as allowing him to do things and escape things that others would not.

I also think that when this is done with a character, it is always highly debatable, because I totally can see what you are saying and I think your reading of him as not being a super wizard is also valid. A popular similar example is Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. I've debated his ability in comparison to the rest of the SW universe for 11 years :lol:. But he was given similar clues in that canon about his person, and even the authors confirmation doesn't help anyone to agree he was the most powerful Jedi. But like Harry, people were loath to count events where he saved himself and everyone else by 'talking' to animals when all the fighting in the world with light sabers and force tricks wasn't working. I do count it and so did Lucas, but others don't, and that divides the opinion.

To me, it was the same with Harry. I think JKR could have had Hermione or Ron "tame" the dragon in Gringotts and let them have a ride; or have had Dobby respond to Hermione's torture in Malfoy Manor (rather than the whole Alberforth in the mirror scenario); or have had Hermione or Ron in the chamber with Harry - or doubly possessed with Harry, etc. And I think then I would be able to definitively say that love/compassion worked in the same way for everyone. But she didn't - instead, she had Harry facing these scenarios alone and getting out of them in ways that were traced back to love/compassion, imo. And by "same way" I only mean in as far as when Harry turned to it - not that it couldn't work for others also, but only that Harry himself gave himself over to love and compassion in situations more than I saw others do.

I think of Hermione or Dumbledore being possessed by Voldemort, and I imagine their minds turning to magic to save themselves - and I think they could come up with some very incredible and strong spells to attempt to eject him. I think of Pettigrew and imagine him turning to fear and giving up, imo. And I think of others and imagine them moving from fear to anger to even revenge in an attempt to free themselves and stop the dark lord. But Harry didn't do any of that, his mind turned to love - and I thought it was very odd actually, for him to do so. So to me, JKR was attempting to show that love is more powerful than magic and what makes Harry a super wizard isn't magic, but rather that he exhibits this power greater than magic more often - and in more *dire* situations than others would do, imo. And note that the situation being one of immediate emergency to himself is key.

However, while I would agree that Harry is by no means a mediocre wizard - and I would say the same for Ron - I would have to disagree that he is an exceptional wizard as well. What makes Harry stand out is not that he has exceptional power or advanced skills. Harry stands out because he is continually put into situations where he is forced to do things that someone his age would not be doing under normal circumstances. And that applies to Ron and Hermione because of their close association with Harry as well - though certainly to a lesser extent because even they aren't put into every situation like that with Harry. In other words, Harry is not more powerful than the other students in his year - he simply got more practice than they did and was put in situations where he had to learn things that they did not.

Experience is arguably the source of becoming powerful though, where innate talent or intelligence is simply a measure of your potential. People learn through experience, and books and studies are a form of experience even if not your own; it's how people grow and how wizards become more powerful. Let me put it this way, do you think Dumbledore or Voldemort would've produced extraordinary magic if they hadn't studied first? If they hadn't experienced life and magic and, most importantly, experimented? Of course not. The role talent and intelligence play is whether you succeed, or how fast you succeed, in your endeavours and in all honesty we haven't seen enough of Harry being able to just experiment to see whether he would succeed in all endeavours, though Head Auror in 8 years is quite something (3 years of that spent training), but I would say that the spells he's failed at mostly were usually under the most detrimental of circumstances; Occlumency being a perfect example: being taught by a teacher you hate, a teacher who is more interested in mocking you than teaching you; having your mind and emotions comprimised because your soul is at war with another's; being 13 years of age and in the middle of puberty; last, but not least, actually not trying to succeed because you want to see where the visions take you.

An example for all three of them would be GOF with the Triwizard Tournament. Because Harry was forced to compete in that tournament, he was put in the situation of learning a lot of defensive spells that he would normally not have learned at that level in his eduation - by association, Ron and Hermione learn those spells as well because they help Harry prepare for the tournament. In that respect, all three of them were given an advantage over the other students in their year because they learned things above and beyond what was being taught in class. Harry compensates for that in OOTP by teaching the DA so those 28 students have an advantage over the rest because they learned things that the rest of the students did not. But both are examples showing that Harry - and some others by association - was put into a situation where he had to learn something that other students did not. It's not a reflection of him having exceptional power, but rather a reflection of him doing what is necessary to survive. And the DA provides the contrast to that by showing that the other students were just as capable as Harry was of learning those things at that level - all they needed was the opportunity to do so.

You're trying to separate two things that are essentially the same. You're trying to separate experience and growth, or knowledge from being extraordinary, which is something that cannot be done. The simple truth is that if Harry wasn't half as talented he would not have survived those encounters; if you placed Goyle in his position he would've died. Stating that Harry became extraordinary through the trials or experiences he underwent is a statement of the obvious because for anyone to become extraordinary they have to experience, be it from books or from their own experience, extraordinary things. Talent and intelligence is a gauge of your potential, but actually BEING extraordinary is dependant on what you learn and know: we are what we know (though there's more to it than that too).

Once again, I point to the fact that if Voldemort or Dumbledore hadn't studied hard and been so motivated, hadn't been taught magic, hadn't experimented - actions that are parallel and similar to Harry's 'hands on' approach - they wouldn't have shined either no matter how high their potential was. It's only through the accumulation of knowledge and experience that a person can show if they're extraordinary or not.

I would apply that to the Patronus charm as well. Yes, it is purported to be a difficult spell to learn - and Harry certainly had a great deal of difficulty when Lupin was teaching it to him. However, there is no contrast provided with any other student getting that same opportunity. Harry was singled out due to the problems he had with the dementors and asking Lupin for extra help. Had Jo presented that as a situation where Lupin decided to make that part of his lessons and teach the entire class the Patronus charm because the dementors were stationed at Hogwarts and Harry was the only one who could manage it, that would have shown him to have more advanced skill than the other students. But we don't get that comparison. We are shown Harry being singled out and given those lessons privately. Two years later, Harry teaches the students in the DA to do the Patronus charm - and the majority of them are able to learn it and produce a corporeal patronus like Harry does.

It is true that the DA members learned the spell too and that there's no direct comparison ie. other 13 year old students trying to learn it. However, it is stated multiple times within the books that the majority of adult wizards are incapable of producing a corporeal Patronus, even having been taught it for NEWTs, let alone 13 year olds.

In addition, I would also argue that a large part of the DA's success is down to Harry's skills at teaching. For example, a couple of the members comment that they weren't able to even successfully stun before, something that was taught to them all in DADA lessons at the same age, yet once they join the DA and are taught by Harry they're all stunning with ease and conjuring Patronuses; there's your direct comparison there.

With regards the Patronus not being a unique ability of Harry's, in other words other students being able to produce it too, I say then what if teenage Dumbledore had taught a group of fellows about magic he'd learned? What if old Dumbledore had taught Harry how to produce those massive fire-based spells that he used and Harry had succeeded? What about Voldemort teaching Snape how to fly? Do these things make Dumbledore and Voldemort any less exceptional now if others could produce magic like they could? In short: does the imparting of knowledge reduce the exceptionality of the teacher as a wizard? I believe the answer to that is no.

My point is simple: just because Harry taught others to be able to produce magic that he could doesn't reduce his prowess as a wizard; if anything, it buffers it.

Having said that, I dislike the way the patronuses were learnt, or the speed at which they were learnt, because it undermined the protagonist AND the entire conception that it was a difficult spell to master. It was kind of like Dragon Ball Z (lol) with the Super Saiyan thing: at first it was a monumental thing in the storyline, and there was only one. Then there were two but even that was ok as the other guy was a hard-case aswell (Vegeta). Then all of a sudden everyone was popping their hair spiky gold, even 7 year olds (Goten and Trunks), and it diminished the entire effect.

It could be argued that it was meant to be a highlight to Harry's talent as a teacher, or that the difficulty in producing a Patronus is in producing one under pressure, but I still thought it was written as being far too easily learnt.

That doesn't set Harry apart as being exceptionally powerful or having advanced skills, IMO. I would say that what that establishes within the context of the story is exactly what Dumbledore explained to Harry in HBP - age has a tendency to underestimate youth. The adults decided the patronus charm was too difficult for students at that level to learn - Harry and the DA proved that the adults were wrong because they were able to learn it.

Your argument here doesn't approve your notion though: it's possible for Harry to be exceptional AND for others to learn the same spell. Let me put it like this: knowledge or information are not limited to the talented or to the intelligent. Having knowledge of and the ability to produce a spell doesn't necessarily require talent, especially if you have a good teacher; for example we see Crabbe successfully conjure Fiendfyre - CRABBE! However, it's the nature of producing that magic that defines talent IMO: whether under pressure, whether under stress, etc.

No extraordinary student (and I'm not speaking of just HP right now) has ever BEEN extraordinary unless they've learnt above and beyond the 'ordinary'. Saying that Harry has learnt more through experience than his fellow students doesn't approve or disapprove any exceptional qualities he may or may not have because it's an integral part of being exceptional anyway. While I'll agree that the character is presented as not being extraordinary, I would say that was more down to JK wanting to allow the reader to relate to her protagonist. However, while he may be presented as quite normal in truth the things he achieves, the spells he casts (in particular the situations he casts them within) and the magical concepts he comes to understand and know about are extraordinary. Just as an example: thanks to Dumbledore, Harry is probably a forefront in the field of wandlore, knowing more than the vast majority of wand-makers.

You are what you know and understand, and what you CAN know and understand: Voldemort knew alot, Dumbledore knew alot, they were exceptional wizards.

Finally, I would concede that I doubt Harry will grow up to have an air of the extraordinary about him like Voldemort or Dumbledore because they were intellectually motivated wizards and had a real thirst for knowledge; the one thing Harry may be visibly exceptional at is being an Auror or a combatitive wizard. Generally, as a wizard though, I feel, at least through the books, he lacks the general intellectual appetite to follow up his talent and potential. For example, on wandlore again, Harry could potentially go further into the subject than any wizard before due to his advanced starting point; is it likely that he will bother though? Things could change though, it's true that when people grow up and mature often they become more intellectually interested so who knows?

That's what I love about the series. I wouldn't say Harry was mediocre at all - he was certainly skilled as a wizard. But others were shown to be equally as skilled as Harry - or more skilled in some cases. Harry never stood out as being more powerful than anyone else overall. I love the fact that Harry was never made into some all powerful "super wizard" - he was just this normal boy who was put into extraordinary circumstances and rose to the occasion because he had this huge capacity for love. And I loved the fact that she made a point to emphasize that it didn't have to be Harry in the end by showing Neville as "The Boy Who Could Have Been".
I totally agree with this.What I always liked about the trio is that they have a good number of flaws.They were all far from perfect.I liked the fact that Harry wasn't the most skilled wizard or that he had all the answers and always did the right thing.Because is real life,this is what people are like.

I agree with your take on Harry's magical ability, that is how I saw him too. I guess where I disagree with many is in that he wasn't shown to be a super-wizard. I think that is what JKR was going for. I think it is because I saw a lot of familiar clues based on general adventure/fantasy stories - and maybe I am wrong, but it seems like she wanted me to see Harry as 'special' and that attribute as allowing him to do things and escape things that others would not.

I think the thing is it had to be more then being a super-wizard,because in that case there are many other people above Harry who could have done the job.You make a good point of the issue of love though.There are many people who show a strong capacity for love(not to say that Harrys capacity wasn't significant).I think it goes back to the incident with Lily though.It was initially Lily's love for Harry that saved him(iirc).Also you have to take into account that Harry was brought up to be 'The chosen one'.I think the psychological effect this would have on Harry(and Voldemort aswell) has to be noticed.And then there's the prophecy.My point being,other factors,other then Harrys skill contributed to his victory.Even if he had not developed his friendship with Ron and Hermione,things could have gone much more differently

I think the thing is it had to be more then being a super-wizard,because in that case there are many other people above Harry who could have done the job.You make a good point of the issue of love though.There are many people who show a strong capacity for love(not to say that Harrys capacity wasn't significant).I think it goes back to the incident with Lily though.It was initially Lily's love for Harry that saved him(iirc).Also you have to take into account that Harry was brought up to be 'The chosen one'.I think the psychological effect this would have on Harry(and Voldemort aswell) has to be noticed.And then there's the prophecy.My point being,other factors,other then Harrys skill contributed to his victory.Even if he had not developed his friendship with Ron and Hermione,things could have gone much more differently

I agree that Harry is a legacy in that regard; not only did his mother sacrifice herself for him, but his dad sacrificed himself for him (and his wife) also; then Sirius fought for him and died doing so; and Lupin came out to the war for Harry according to JKR. So you had those Harry loved - those he called back from the dead for courage and love - all having directly died in some way directly connected to attempting to save his life. I think Harry would appreciate the sacrifice angle that all of these people contributed. But by the same token, none of them, not even his parents, were there to teach him as a youngster to turn to love in his times of need. In fact, at the Dursleys, he turned to anger and fear - causing that automatic magic to happen, imo. It was like the insight of finding out how much love his parents had for him, triggered that whole line of thinking in his heart or something, and was reinforced by Sirius, Lupin, Molly, Arthur, Tonks, and his other close friends, all of whom were 'there' for him and showing him love. So I think his turning to love in times of need was something that was innate, but started to show itself upon finding out the truth of his heritage and just grew from there. In DH it became profound - and note he learned even more about turning to love (imo) - its influence on the dragon at Gringotts and its influence on Dobby, for example. JKR had him witness the whole night of his parents deaths, and took their wands from them in that scene - (in a comparative example, just as Lucas took Anakin Skywalkers light saber away at the end) and she took away Harry's wand for the final battle and made him bank on Draco's and an Elder Wand he could not be 100% certain that he owned - he had to go on faith that the compassion he'd shown in his sacrifice would continue to prove his worthiness to the Elder Wand, despite Voldemort having AK'd him, and that his taking Draco's hawthorne wand from him had transferred the power of the Elder Wand as well, imo. So to me, the emphasis was on Harry counting on, turning to and ultimately placing his faith and belief in love/compassion, imo.

Love is what it would take to defeat Voldemort - true - but I think the canon showed that it could also be used to take care of numerous enemies and foes like the dementors and Quirrellmort, Balisks, etc. To me, that was his gift - not just love which everyone had - but the way he turned to it in his time of need - selflessly and wholeheartedly, imo.

It isn't a huge duel we got in the end, showing Harry's prowess (which would have been entirely cool), but rather, his faith and dependance on love, imo. Same with Anakin in the example I gave - same in many stories actually. Others go with the straight out fighting to the ultimate defeat, but that wasn't the story that JKR wove, imo.

Agreed. :tu:



That is how I see it also - and I think others too showed the saving people thing here and there as well.

Agreed. :agree:

I agree with your take on Harry's magical ability, that is how I saw him too. I guess where I disagree with many is in that he wasn't shown to be a super-wizard. I think that is what JKR was going for. I think it is because I saw a lot of familiar clues based on general adventure/fantasy stories - and maybe I am wrong, but it seems like she wanted me to see Harry as 'special' and that attribute as allowing him to do things and escape things that others would not.

I've always felt that she did want us to see Harry as "special", but rather than depicting him as "special" in the sense that he was uber powerful and skilled, she showed him to be "special" in that he had this huge capacity for love in spite of the harsh circumstances of how he was raised.

I also think that when this is done with a character, it is always highly debatable, because I totally can see what you are saying and I think your reading of him as not being a super wizard is also valid. A popular similar example is Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. I've debated his ability in comparison to the rest of the SW universe for 11 years :lol:. But he was given similar clues in that canon about his person, and even the authors confirmation doesn't help anyone to agree he was the most powerful Jedi. But like Harry, people were loath to count events where he saved himself and everyone else by 'talking' to animals when all the fighting in the world with light sabers and force tricks wasn't working. I do count it and so did Lucas, but others don't, and that divides the opinion.

I think the distinction I would make with Anakin is that him being very powerful was something that was shown - as well as discussed - within the film. His lightsaber skills are compared to Yoda's - and it was primarily his recklessness that caused him problems. So while I would agree that whether or not he was the most powerful is debatable - particularly with them showing him at younger ages in the prequels - I think they did establish that he was very powerful and was - at the very least - at a higher level of power/skill than many of the other Jedi Masters - with the implication that he would surpass all of them eventually.

We don't really get that with Harry. He gets singled out to learn some things that others don't, but when it comes right down to it, he is shown to be fairly average in terms of his power and skill because the others are just as capable as he is of learning those things when they get the opportunity.

To me, it was the same with Harry. I think JKR could have had Hermione or Ron "tame" the dragon in Gringotts and let them have a ride; or have had Dobby respond to Hermione's torture in Malfoy Manor (rather than the whole Alberforth in the mirror scenario); or have had Hermione or Ron in the chamber with Harry - or doubly possessed with Harry, etc. And I think then I would be able to definitively say that love/compassion worked in the same way for everyone. But she didn't - instead, she had Harry facing these scenarios alone and getting out of them in ways that were traced back to love/compassion, imo. And by "same way" I only mean in as far as when Harry turned to it - not that it couldn't work for others also, but only that Harry himself gave himself over to love and compassion in situations more than I saw others do.

Harry didn't tame the dragon in Gringott's though - they pretty much just hopped on the dragon's back without him being aware of it and then prayed he wouldn't notice they were there and eat them. :lol:

I don't think the mirror is a good example of Harry's capacity for love - it was just a means of communication and would have worked for Ron or Hermione as well because it was simply a matter of asking whoever was using it to send help.

I think the issue of Voldemort feeling pain when he possessed Harry is a slightly better example, but there are mitigating factors there as well with Harry having a piece of Voldemort's soul and Voldemort using Harry's blood with the magical protection that Lily gave him. Would Voldemort have been able to possess someone else that deeply so easily? From what Dumbledore says that would have been difficult - he attributes Voldemort's ease in possessing Nagini and the level of control he has with her to her being a Horcrux. By the same token, was it just that Harry felt grief because Sirius had just died that caused Voldemort pain or was Lily's protection part of that?

I do agree that someone like Hermione or Dumbledore might seek to find a spell to release them in a situation like that, but I think grief is a powerful emotion for anyone so if it was just Harry's grief that caused Voldemort to feel pain, then that would be true for others as well - though I would agree that the level of grief would vary depending on who they were grieving for. Hermione would not feel the same level of grief for Sirius that Harry did, but if that were one of her parents, her grief would be on the same level. In that respect, if the situations were reversed with Hermione - or Ron - being the one grieving for one of their parents, one of Ron's siblings, each other, or even Harry then the outcome would be similar if it was solely Harry's grief that caused Voldemort to feel pain.

Experience is arguably the source of becoming powerful though, where innate talent or intelligence is simply a measure of your potential. People learn through experience, and books and studies are a form of experience even if not your own; it's how people grow and how wizards become more powerful. Let me put it this way, do you think Dumbledore or Voldemort would've produced extraordinary magic if they hadn't studied first? If they hadn't experienced life and magic and, most importantly, experimented? Of course not. The role talent and intelligence play is whether you succeed, or how fast you succeed, in your endeavours and in all honesty we haven't seen enough of Harry being able to just experiment to see whether he would succeed in all endeavours, though Head Auror in 8 years is quite something (3 years of that spent training), but I would say that the spells he's failed at mostly were usually under the most detrimental of circumstances; Occlumency being a perfect example: being taught by a teacher you hate, a teacher who is more interested in mocking you than teaching you; having your mind and emotions comprimised because your soul is at war with another's; being 13 years of age and in the middle of puberty; last, but not least, actually not trying to succeed because you want to see where the visions take you.

Actually, I do think that Dumbledore would have been able to produce powerful magic whether he studied or not - I'd say he did actually. The incidents of his accidental bursts of magic as a child were likely very impressive - and probably not all accidents given what we're shown with others throughout the series. Voldemort produced powerful magic at the orphanage before he even found out that he was a wizard - gaining an extraordinary level of control without being taught or studying at all. His use of magic was not accidental - it was deliberate. Snape also demonstrated a high level of control over his magic at the age of 10 - and had invented quite a few spells of his own by the time he was 15. The Marauders created the Marauder's Map - a very advanced and complex magical object - as students. They also taught themselves to be animagi - though James and Sirius did have to help Pettigrew with that a lot so he could do it.

There is an astonishing decrease in regards to the level of power, skill, and what they are capable of with Harry's generation when compared to the previous generation - or further back with examples like Voldemort and Dumbledore. None of the students in Harry's time demonstrate that level of power or skill - or the initiative to invent something new. Hermione might be the brightest witch in Harry's year, but she follows the book - OWL examiners aren't going to be returning years later giving glowing praise to Hermione's inventiveness and power as a student the way they did Dumbledore because Hermione never showed that type of initiative.

The amount of what they've been taught or how well they do the magic they know really isn't the isssue for me - I'm talking about the amount of power or skill displayed. The strength of the spell cast basically. For example, Harry casts Expelliarmus against Goyle in DH and the spell does what it's supposed to do - knocking Goyle's wand out of his hand - a fairly typical demonstration of Harry's power and we see Ron and Hermione use this same spell with the same level of power demonstrated as well. But in POA - combined with Ron and Hermione - that same spell had enough strength to throw Snape backwards and knock him out - a demonstration of a much higher level of power due to the combined effect of all three of them using the same spell at the same time. In contrast, Snape is powerful enough to use Expelliarmus to throw Lockhart backwards when he casts the spell alone. In terms of raw power, Harry is fairly average.

Lockhart would be a good example of that as well - he knows what the spells are, but he is not powerful enough to use them effectively. As we see in the DADA class where he lets the pixies loose. He knows the spell necessary to use against them, but he cannot make it work - he's not very powerful. Likewise, he knows the spell for repairing a broken bone - but he is not powerful enough to make it work properly and removes Harry's bones instead. Knowledge is only one part of the equation - having the power required to use that knowledge is also necessary. Some wizards are more powerful than others - not in terms of what they know, but the amount of power that they can apply to what they know.

It is true that the DA members learned the spell too and that there's no direct comparison ie. other 13 year old students trying to learn it. However, it is stated multiple times within the books that the majority of adult wizards are incapable of producing a corporeal Patronus, even having been taught it for NEWTs, let alone 13 year olds.

That's the point actually - Lupin says that to Harry when he teaches him the charm. Yet we are shown that - contrary to what the adults think - students are very capable of learning that charm and producing a corporeal patronus. The adults within the story are unaware of that because the DA was kept a secret - even when they were caught, Dumbledore was able to pass it off as that being their first meeting at his request. So Harry was being given credit for something that was not true - he was not the only student capable of producing a corporeal patronus. He was merely the only one they knew about.

That's not to say that adult wizards would not have difficulty with the charm - again, Lockhart would be a good example of a less powerful wizard who probably would not be able to do it. But the majority of the adult wizards we are introduced to in the story are shown to be capable of doing the charm. Everyone in the Order uses it - that is their means of communication. Really, the only ones that are shown not to use the charm are people like Voldemort and the Death Eaters - who don't bother with it because they don't need it. Pretty much everyone in the DA is able to do it - just as well as Harry. Lupin's statement and the other adult's belief that Harry being able to do that charm was something special because he was young was demonstrated to be false because Harry wasn't the only student capable of doing that charm.

By showing that other students were capable of performing that charm just as well as Harry could, Jo demonstrated that the charm itself was not that big of a deal. That serves more towards showing that the adults were underestimating what students were capable of than it does for establishing Harry to be powerful. Harry is no more powerful than anyone else in terms of his raw power and what he is capable of with the spells he casts. He was fairly average in that regard. Being given advantages towards learning spells that others were not doesn't make him more powerful because they were equally capable of learning those spells and performing them to the same level as Harry was.

In addition, I would also argue that a large part of the DA's success is down to Harry's skills at teaching. For example, a couple of the members comment that they weren't able to even successfully stun before, something that was taught to them all in DADA lessons at the same age, yet once they join the DA and are taught by Harry they're all stunning with ease and conjuring Patronuses; there's your direct comparison there.

It still comes down to the amount of power they have though. I would say Lockhart had some very good teachers as well - that didn't give him the necessary power to be able to use spells correctly. The best teacher in the world is not going to be able to give a student more power than what they were born with. All they can do is teach them the spell - whether or not the student can use the spell effectively comes down to the amount of power they have and their skill in controlling that power.

With regards the Patronus not being a unique ability of Harry's, in other words other students being able to produce it too, I say then what if teenage Dumbledore had taught a group of fellows about magic he'd learned? What if old Dumbledore had taught Harry how to produce those massive fire-based spells that he used and Harry had succeeded? What about Voldemort teaching Snape how to fly? Do these things make Dumbledore and Voldemort any less exceptional now if others could produce magic like they could? In short: does the imparting of knowledge reduce the exceptionality of the teacher as a wizard? I believe the answer to that is no.

My point is simple: just because Harry taught others to be able to produce magic that he could doesn't reduce his prowess as a wizard; if anything, it buffers it.

Well, that would depend on whether the person - or people - they were teaching surpassed them in terms of raw power. Dumbledore, Voldemort, and even Snape were all shown to be extremely powerful wizards - not just in the amount of knowledge they had, but the strength of the spells they cast. What other wizard do we see with enough power to use a stunning spell to blast through a door and still stun the target? Only Dumbledore displays that amount of power on page. Anyone else - with the possible exception of Voldemort and maybe Snape - the stunning spell would have bounced off the door rather than blasting through it. In that respect, Dumbledore could teach thousands of students how to do a stunning spell and still be viewed as one of the most powerful wizards in the world as long as he was one of the few wizards who had enough power to use that spell to blast through a door and still hit the target. If nearly all of the people Dumbledore taught to do a stunning spell were capable of using it blast through a door and still hit the target then, yes, that would demonstrate that Dumbledore was not as powerful as he appeared because that would show him to be equal to everyone else in terms of the amount of power displayed.

Having said that, I dislike the way the patronuses were learnt, or the speed at which they were learnt, because it undermined the protagonist AND the entire conception that it was a difficult spell to master. It was kind of like Dragon Ball Z (lol) with the Super Saiyan thing: at first it was a monumental thing in the storyline, and there was only one. Then there were two but even that was ok as the other guy was a hard-case aswell (Vegeta). Then all of a sudden everyone was popping their hair spiky gold, even 7 year olds (Goten and Trunks), and it diminished the entire effect.

It could be argued that it was meant to be a highlight to Harry's talent as a teacher, or that the difficulty in producing a Patronus is in producing one under pressure, but I still thought it was written as being far too easily learnt.

I don't follow Dragon Ball Z - though my son does. However, in terms of Harry Potter, I would say that was the entire point. The wizarding world in general had a tendency to attribute Harry with being super powerful because of what happened when he was a baby when the reality was that he was simply a normal boy forced into extraordinary circumstances. His survival as a baby was due to what his mother did rather than anything he did himself - but the majority of the wizarding world was not aware of that. It wasn't the amount of power Harry had that led to him succeeding - it was his determination and the strength of his will. It was his capacity for love and compassion. In terms of raw power, Harry was no better than anyone else. That is a good example of legend obscuring fact actually - which we also see regarding the Deathly Hallows. Harry wasn't super powerful any more than the Elder wand was unbeatable, the stone could actually raise the dead, or the cloak was infallible. Legend and rumor obscured the truth about those objects in the same way that legend and rumor obscured the truth about Harry.

In demonstrating that the Patronus charm was not as difficult as the adults made it out to be, Jo emphasized the point Dumbledore made in HBP regarding how age has a tendency to underestimate youth. The adults decided the Patronus charm was too difficult for kids to learn so it wasn't taught until NEWT level. Harry and the DA set the example that the adults were wrong and they were underestimating what the students were capable of. It was a charm that the average third year student could learn.

Your argument here doesn't approve your notion though: it's possible for Harry to be exceptional AND for others to learn the same spell. Let me put it like this: knowledge or information are not limited to the talented or to the intelligent. Having knowledge of and the ability to produce a spell doesn't necessarily require talent, especially if you have a good teacher; for example we see Crabbe successfully conjure Fiendfyre - CRABBE! However, it's the nature of producing that magic that defines talent IMO: whether under pressure, whether under stress, etc.

But Crabbe is also shown not to have enough power to control the spell he cast - which is why the Fiendfyre swept through the Room of Requirement and Crabbe was killed. He had the knowledge of what the spell was and how to cast it, but did not have the power to control it.

Knowledge and information are only part of the equation - one must also have the raw power to be able to control the spell. Going back to the patronus charm - Hermione gives a good example there because that is a charm that she has difficulty with. Not in the classroom setting - Hermione can produce a corporeal patronus in the classroom just as well as Harry and the others. But in the face of dementors, Hermione did not have as much power to control the patronus charm and hold it as well as the others. Harry and Ron can do that very well - as could Luna, Ernie, and Seamus. That was something that hindered Hermione throughout - she was very good with knowledge and information and learning the theory so she tended to master spells before anyone else. But that was in the classroom setting under controlled circumstances. When it came to practical application, Hermione was shown to not be as powerful as others - particularly with defensive spells. Where Dumbledore was both highly intelligent and very powerful, Hermione was highly intelligent and fairly average in the amount of power she had. Harry and Ron were fairly intelligent in their own right as well as fairly average in the amount of power they had. The three of them working together as a team raised that because they balanced out their strengths and weaknesses.

That was the point - to show this normal kid who was fairly average in terms of his power and abilities being forced into extraordinary circumstances and rising to the challenge due to the strength of his will and force of his determination. It was never about Harry having a lot of power. It was about him having a larger capacity for love.

I totally agree with this.What I always liked about the trio is that they have a good number of flaws.They were all far from perfect.I liked the fact that Harry wasn't the most skilled wizard or that he had all the answers and always did the right thing.Because is real life,this is what people are like.

Exactly. :agree:

I think the thing is it had to be more then being a super-wizard,because in that case there are many other people above Harry who could have done the job.You make a good point of the issue of love though.There are many people who show a strong capacity for love(not to say that Harrys capacity wasn't significant).I think it goes back to the incident with Lily though.It was initially Lily's love for Harry that saved him(iirc).Also you have to take into account that Harry was brought up to be 'The chosen one'.I think the psychological effect this would have on Harry(and Voldemort aswell) has to be noticed.And then there's the prophecy.My point being,other factors,other then Harrys skill contributed to his victory.Even if he had not developed his friendship with Ron and Hermione,things could have gone much more differently

Precisely the point. If it came down to power or skill in regards to magic, then there were quite a few people who were far more capable than Harry who could have done the job - and probably with a lot less difficulty because they wouldn't have had to work around adults trying to protect and shelter them because they were kids.

The whole point was to show this normal kid rising to meet an extraordinary challenge. There are a lot of factors that go towards him being able to succeed - his capacity for love, determination, and the strength of his will are significant. His friendship with Ron and Hermione - as well as their ability to work together as a team. The other friends he made and learning to accept their help when it was offered. It was never about Harry being super powerful - that would have defeated the purpose, IMO.

It isn't a huge duel we got in the end, showing Harry's prowess (which would have been entirely cool), but rather, his faith and dependance on love, imo. Same with Anakin in the example I gave - same in many stories actually. Others go with the straight out fighting to the ultimate defeat, but that wasn't the story that JKR wove, imo.

Exactly. :agree:

Actually, I do think that Dumbledore would have been able to produce powerful magic whether he studied or not - I'd say he did actually. The incidents of his accidental bursts of magic as a child were likely very impressive - and probably not all accidents given what we're shown with others throughout the series. Voldemort produced powerful magic at the orphanage before he even found out that he was a wizard - gaining an extraordinary level of control without being taught or studying at all. His use of magic was not accidental - it was deliberate. Snape also demonstrated a high level of control over his magic at the age of 10 - and had invented quite a few spells of his own by the time he was 15. The Marauders created the Marauder's Map - a very advanced and complex magical object - as students. They also taught themselves to be animagi - though James and Sirius did have to help Pettigrew with that a lot so he could do it.

The problem here is that this is conjectural except for Voldemort, and even then it's highly debatable. We don't see or hear alot of what Harry does when he's a child; there are three major events described by JK: the hair growing back, him appearing on top of a tree when Dudley was after him (uncontrolled or not this is pretty powerful magic - he basically apparated) and the snake being released from the zoo. However, any other incidents, anything, we're simply not told about. It's impossible to really go further with this line of argument, either from my side or yours, because there's simply not enough information to debate over.

As for Snape and Marauders, this is more study, acedemics and knowledge than anything else. Ok, obviously talent is required to produce the actual magic but the fruits are produced through studying the magic, and thus it's impossible to use as a comparison because we don't really see Harry digging his nose into books, thinking up new spells or delving into the mysteries of perfecting the recipes of potions. Especially the potion recipes from Snape because this knowledge isn't talent, it's not like he grew up just KNOWING to crush that instead of chop it or use 47 of these instead of 45; he learnt through trial, error and experience because I can just imagine Snape with his hooked nose in the cauldron an awful lot!

There is an astonishing decrease in regards to the level of power, skill, and what they are capable of with Harry's generation when compared to the previous generation - or further back with examples like Voldemort and Dumbledore. None of the students in Harry's time demonstrate that level of power or skill - or the initiative to invent something new. Hermione might be the brightest witch in Harry's year, but she follows the book - OWL examiners aren't going to be returning years later giving glowing praise to Hermione's inventiveness and power as a student the way they did Dumbledore because Hermione never showed that type of initiative.

Which is exactly why I place more faith in the magical power of the current generation than you do probably - such a generalised decrease isn't logical or probable especially over so many students, and so I place quite a bit of the older generation's alleged 'power' upon mystique and hyperbole. There's also the fact that, once again, we have no real concrete comparisons; there are flickers of information at relatives ages to compare but they're minute, and most of the time they're simply acedemic achievement and not magical power.

The amount of what they've been taught or how well they do the magic they know really isn't the isssue for me - I'm talking about the amount of power or skill displayed. The strength of the spell cast basically. For example, Harry casts Expelliarmus against Goyle in DH and the spell does what it's supposed to do - knocking Goyle's wand out of his hand - a fairly typical demonstration of Harry's power and we see Ron and Hermione use this same spell with the same level of power demonstrated as well. But in POA - combined with Ron and Hermione - that same spell had enough strength to throw Snape backwards and knock him out - a demonstration of a much higher level of power due to the combined effect of all three of them using the same spell at the same time. In contrast, Snape is powerful enough to use Expelliarmus to throw Lockhart backwards when he casts the spell alone. In terms of raw power, Harry is fairly average.

There are several ways of looking at this though.

Firstly, training is a part of it: we see from certain parts of the books that your concentration or focus affects the power of your spells, be it through pure mental focus (like Snape no doubt) or emotion. This is something that can be taught and learned, through practice and experience of casting the same spells over and over again and focusing - think of it like a monk who is practising the art of meditation, it's meant to take a very very long time to learn to clear your mind of thought and the same could be said of spell powers.

This leads me to my second point: Snape is a fully grown man, completely developed and practised in his magic and so it shouldn't be a surprise that his magical power is stronger, even compared to Harry's spells in DH.

Thirdly, you could argue that there are spells Harry casts that are more powerful than cast by other wizards:

For example, in PoA his Patronus' power and effect is enormous, and Hermione herself comments on this comparing it not to other students but to fully developed wizards whose accounts are written off in her books.

Another example is Harry casting Crucio in DH on : now I know it sounds like an odd example but the reason I highlight it is the fact that actually flew across the room rather than simply being on the floor in pain. Harry lacked the malice in his heart to make it cripple the victim but the power of the spells was considerable.

Fourthly, this is a highly debatable point but I stand by it and I'll explain why: you could argue that the first duel between Voldemort and Harry, the connective struggle issued by Priori Incantatem, was a measure of magic power. There are two reasons I think this:

a) there was nothing else affecting the duel; skill in magic, knowledge of magic, neither wizard was adversely affected more than the other.

b) the scenario of quite power-based - it was like a magical power struggle. If you read that entire duel in depth you'll see many references to a tug-of-war-esque battle and it was essentially a magical tug-of-war, one that Harry stood his ground in against Voldemort of all people.

Fifthly, while even more abstract a reason I do find some meaning in JK's words about why she chose the name 'Harry' - she chose it for its two meanings: home and power.

Lockhart would be a good example of that as well - he knows what the spells are, but he is not powerful enough to use them effectively. As we see in the DADA class where he lets the pixies loose. He knows the spell necessary to use against them, but he cannot make it work - he's not very powerful. Likewise, he knows the spell for repairing a broken bone - but he is not powerful enough to make it work properly and removes Harry's bones instead. Knowledge is only one part of the equation - having the power required to use that knowledge is also necessary. Some wizards are more powerful than others - not in terms of what they know, but the amount of power that they can apply to what they know.

Yeah I know what you mean now, and it's usually a difficult thing to define. I think the main issue we're having is that we disagree on this point: about Harry's magical power. I think it's considerably high on the basis of what I've read while you probably don't ^^.

That's the point actually - Lupin says that to Harry when he teaches him the charm. Yet we are shown that - contrary to what the adults think - students are very capable of learning that charm and producing a corporeal patronus. The adults within the story are unaware of that because the DA was kept a secret - even when they were caught, Dumbledore was able to pass it off as that being their first meeting at his request. So Harry was being given credit for something that was not true - he was not the only student capable of producing a corporeal patronus. He was merely the only one they knew about.

Yes I know, but my point was rather that most adults, most fully grown adult wizards who ARE taught the charm in NEWTS, fail to produce a corporeal Patronus. I know the other students could pull it off but my argument was that the DA group, combined with Harry's teaching, was more exceptional than you're led to believe; the way it was written made it seem easy but when you look at the fact, the truth is that these students have produced this piece of magic one or two years prematurely that the majority of others, older and more experienced in many cases, STILL can't produce.

I don't often criticise the writing, barely in fact, but I did think the way this part was written was a little underwhelming in conveying just how great a feat this was for the DA. Oh sure, it's said most adults can't do it even when they know the magic and have practised it/training in it, but the scope isn't conveyed appropriately IMO.

That's not to say that adult wizards would not have difficulty with the charm - again, Lockhart would be a good example of a less powerful wizard who probably would not be able to do it. But the majority of the adult wizards we are introduced to in the story are shown to be capable of doing the charm. Everyone in the Order uses it - that is their means of communication. Really, the only ones that are shown not to use the charm are people like Voldemort and the Death Eaters - who don't bother with it because they don't need it. Pretty much everyone in the DA is able to do it - just as well as Harry. Lupin's statement and the other adult's belief that Harry being able to do that charm was something special because he was young was demonstrated to be false because Harry wasn't the only student capable of doing that charm.

Yeah but it's explicitly stated that most adult wizards cannot produce the charm. Yes, most we meet can but that's because most of the adult wizards we meet are talented: they're not working at Borkin and Burkes or in a magical pub, they're Aurors or fairly senior Ministry officials: these aren't average adult wizards here, they're the exceptions.

By showing that other students were capable of performing that charm just as well as Harry could, Jo demonstrated that the charm itself was not that big of a deal. That serves more towards showing that the adults were underestimating what students were capable of than it does for establishing Harry to be powerful. Harry is no more powerful than anyone else in terms of his raw power and what he is capable of with the spells he casts. He was fairly average in that regard. Being given advantages towards learning spells that others were not doesn't make him more powerful because they were equally capable of learning those spells and performing them to the same level as Harry was.

Yet she also explicitly states that most adults who HAVE learned and been taught the charm can't produce a corporeal form of it.

In this case I think we might be at crossed wires a bit, or at least from the sound of your argument. It sounds to me, just on a guess, that you're under the impression that most wizards don't learn it, that it's something off the school curriculum that Harry and DA just learned due to Lupin: this isn't the case. The charm is part of the NEWT level curriculum, it's stated in PoA and OotP, therefore every single adult that has graduated from Hogwarts and probably Beauxbatons AND Durmstrang has learnt the spell and the MAJORITY of these wizards can't produce the corporeal form of it.

That in itself says it all: Harry and the DA's achievement in producing the charm wasn't ordinary or normal, it was above and beyond that.

It still comes down to the amount of power they have though. I would say Lockhart had some very good teachers as well - that didn't give him the necessary power to be able to use spells correctly. The best teacher in the world is not going to be able to give a student more power than what they were born with. All they can do is teach them the spell - whether or not the student can use the spell effectively comes down to the amount of power they have and their skill in controlling that power.

Agreed but again I think we simply disagree on the 'power' aspect here. Part of the problem is that by direct comparison most of the time one compares Harry to adult wizards which isn't a fair comparison.

Well, that would depend on whether the person - or people - they were teaching surpassed them in terms of raw power. Dumbledore, Voldemort, and even Snape were all shown to be extremely powerful wizards - not just in the amount of knowledge they had, but the strength of the spells they cast. What other wizard do we see with enough power to use a stunning spell to blast through a door and still stun the target? Only Dumbledore displays that amount of power on page. Anyone else - with the possible exception of Voldemort and maybe Snape - the stunning spell would have bounced off the door rather than blasting through it. In that respect, Dumbledore could teach thousands of students how to do a stunning spell and still be viewed as one of the most powerful wizards in the world as long as he was one of the few wizards who had enough power to use that spell to blast through a door and still hit the target. If nearly all of the people Dumbledore taught to do a stunning spell were capable of using it blast through a door and still hit the target then, yes, that would demonstrate that Dumbledore was not as powerful as he appeared because that would show him to be equal to everyone else in terms of the amount of power displayed.

There are too many elements to take into consideration though: you could argue his use of the Elder Wand affected this too. In addition, we don't know if it was a particular way in which he moved his wand, mental focus etc. these are relevant because they can be learnt through practice; it's impossible to really know why and if it was something like wand movement or mental focus then it's something that could be taught rather than being innate. It's similar to fighting I suppose: better technique results in a person appearing stronger, in terms of brute force, than they really are and the same goes for magic: we see this with Neville alot and with wands.

In terms of raw power, Harry was no better than anyone else. That is a good example of legend obscuring fact actually - which we also see regarding the Deathly Hallows. Harry wasn't super powerful any more than the Elder wand was unbeatable, the stone could actually raise the dead, or the cloak was infallible. Legend and rumor obscured the truth about those objects in the same way that legend and rumor obscured the truth about Harry.

I'd like to highlight this point because it's exactly something I hinted at earlier in my post: Voldemort and Dumbledore are definitely powerful wizards but they're placed on virtually mythic pedestals, often their capabilities are blown into larger proportions due to the very same thing: things like "most brilliant student Hogwarts as ever known" etc. is hyperbole, no matter how good Dumbledore may have been, and is just as hyperbolic as stories of Harry therefore it's very hard to discern the actual truth without a direct comparison of which we have very little. We actually see Harry grow, struggle, etc. we don't see Dumbledore or Voldemort extensively do this, simply hear favourable accounts from their teachers and thus it's heavily steeped in bias.

In demonstrating that the Patronus charm was not as difficult as the adults made it out to be, Jo emphasized the point Dumbledore made in HBP regarding how age has a tendency to underestimate youth. The adults decided the Patronus charm was too difficult for kids to learn so it wasn't taught until NEWT level. Harry and the DA set the example that the adults were wrong and they were underestimating what the students were capable of. It was a charm that the average third year student could learn.

See above: my argument isn't just about kids or youth, it's the fact that the majority of wizards, adult or child, couldn't produce a corporeal Patronus after extensive training. If it was a charm the average third year student could learn then virtually every adult wizard would be able to do it because they all learn it in their NEWTs: the fact is, most adult wizards CAN'T do it so it's not an average charm for adults let alone third years.

But Crabbe is also shown not to have enough power to control the spell he cast - which is why the Fiendfyre swept through the Room of Requirement and Crabbe was killed. He had the knowledge of what the spell was and how to cast it, but did not have the power to control it.

Indeed, but the fact he was able to even cast the spell rather than have his wand give up on him displays a blurry 'wall' of magical aptitude.

That was the point - to show this normal kid who was fairly average in terms of his power and abilities being forced into extraordinary circumstances and rising to the challenge due to the strength of his will and force of his determination. It was never about Harry having a lot of power. It was about him having a larger capacity for love.

You see this is fairly interpretive. I'll definitely agree that Harry is presented as a fairly normal boy at the beginning of the series but as it moves on I honestly don't see him as anything ordinary, neither in his actions OR his magical power; to me it was more a story of growth and a typical hero's tale where the hero overcomes adverse odds because of strength he gains outside of himself (love, compassion, etc.) however it doesn't disapprove his own power BECAUSE the odds he's up against are simply not fair.

In addition, if we consider the fact he becomes Head Auror in 5 years only (3 years of the 8 are training) then I can't see how he's an average or even "good" wizard. To become Head Auror so quickly he would have to rise above many other Aurors; Aurors, who in themselves are fairly exceptional combatitive wizards at that. In my eyes, the entire story depicts a normal, average boy in Philosopher's Stone, "just Harry", who is and thus becomes so much more, both down to his actions, the adversity that is forced upon him AND because he's not so normal after all. The fact he begins his adventures as being normal, that he is raised in unflattering surroundings etc. doesn't mean he IS normal at all.

The whole point was to show this normal kid rising to meet an extraordinary challenge. There are a lot of factors that go towards him being able to succeed - his capacity for love, determination, and the strength of his will are significant. His friendship with Ron and Hermione - as well as their ability to work together as a team. The other friends he made and learning to accept their help when it was offered. It was never about Harry being super powerful - that would have defeated the purpose, IMO.

For me that depends on how he was 'super powerful'. If he started off being super powerful then sure but that, for me, was the advantage of him being a boy wizard: even if he were a legendary wizard in waiting, the fact he was a boy would've meant he couldn't have taken on Voldemort and the Death Eaters like it was cakewalk.

Starting off super powerful would've been stupid agreed but growing into it? Not so much IMO.

The problem here is that this is conjectural except for Voldemort, and even then it's highly debatable. We don't see or hear alot of what Harry does when he's a child; there are three major events described by JK: the hair growing back, him appearing on top of a tree when Dudley was after him (uncontrolled or not this is pretty powerful magic - he basically apparated) and the snake being released from the zoo. However, any other incidents, anything, we're simply not told about. It's impossible to really go further with this line of argument, either from my side or yours, because there's simply not enough information to debate over.

Jo addressed the issue of young children having uncontrolled bursts of magic - that was actually quite common with magical children. Typically caused by strong emotion - particularly anger or fear - young children will often have such "power surges" in which they do something spontaneous. For example, Fred was very angry when Ron broke his toy broomstick and transfigured Ron's teddy bear into a spider when he was 4 years old. He did not know the spell necessary for that - he was just angry and wishing to punish Ron. It was a spontaneous burst of magic.

There is a distinction made with Voldemort and Snape when they were children - we see that on page. Both demonstrated a high level of control over their magic and were able to do things deliberately rather than having uncontrolled bursts of magic in spite of the fact that neither had been trained or taught how to do spells - though Snape would have some advantage there in knowing that he was a wizard to begin with. Given what we're shown regarding Dumbledore, I would say that would be true for him as well.

As for Snape and Marauders, this is more study, acedemics and knowledge than anything else. Ok, obviously talent is required to produce the actual magic but the fruits are produced through studying the magic, and thus it's impossible to use as a comparison because we don't really see Harry digging his nose into books, thinking up new spells or delving into the mysteries of perfecting the recipes of potions. Especially the potion recipes from Snape because this knowledge isn't talent, it's not like he grew up just KNOWING to crush that instead of chop it or use 47 of these instead of 45; he learnt through trial, error and experience because I can just imagine Snape with his hooked nose in the cauldron an awful lot!

Well, that's a matter of perspective I guess. For me, raw power would be the more significant factor because, if you don't have that power to begin with, then you can study all you want and it wouldn't make any difference. If all it took was studying and learning spells, then anyone could do magic - muggles included. The power they are born with is what makes the difference.

Another factor there - James and Sirius did not study all that much. We see that on page as well. Like Harry and Ron, they were rather lazy about doing their school work and studying. But they still demonstrate a lot of power in the magic they do.

I wasn't referring to potions by the way - I agree that would be studying and learning how the different ingredients worked because making a potion is really not a measure of power. I was referring to the spells that Snape invented - muffliato, Sectumsempra, the toenail hex, etc...

Which is exactly why I place more faith in the magical power of the current generation than you do probably - such a generalised decrease isn't logical or probable especially over so many students, and so I place alot of the older generation's allegated 'power' upon mystique and hyperbole. There's also the fact that, once again, we have no real concrete comparisons; there are flickers of information at relatives ages to compare but they're minute, and most of the time they're simply acedemic achievement and not magical power.

I don't consider inventing a powerful spell a mere academic achievement - sticking with Lockhart, I would say he was too weak in terms of his raw power to be capable of inventing a spell regardless of how much he might have studied or practiced. He just didn't have the power to pull it off.

The thing with Harry's generation is that none of them really stand out. Hermione gets the best grades, but practical application shows the amount of power she has to be fairly average. We see the majority of the students in Harry's generation performing magic and their skills are fairly equal overall - particularly in DH.

Firstly, training is a part of it: we see from certain parts of the books that your concentration or focus affects the power of your spells, be it through pure mental focus (like Snape no doubt) or emotion. This is something that can be taught and learned, through practice and experience of casting the same spells over and over again and focusing - think of it like a monk who is practising the art of meditation, it's meant to take a very very long time to learn to clear your mind of thought and the same could be said of spell powers.

Power cannot be taught. You either have it or you don't. As I said before, if it were simply a matter of studying, then muggles could do magic as well. But - as Jo explained - a muggle could study the spells and get a wand and it wouldn't make any difference. They still wouldn't be able to do magic because they have no magical power.

Witches and wizards are shown to have varying levels of power - some are inherently more powerful than others. This is not a matter of how much they study or learn - the amount of power they have is something they are born with. Hermione puts a lot of effort into her studies, but that doesn't make her very powerful - she knows a lot, but she's not going to be blasting through doors with a stunning spell.

This leads me to my second point: Snape is a fully grown man, completely developed and practised in his magic and so it shouldn't be a surprise that his magical power is stronger, even compared to Harry's spells in DH.

Lockhart was an adult as well - fully trained and practiced. He did put a lot of effort into learning because he liked to show off how much he knew - but he didn't have the power to do the spells properly.

Snape and Harry using the same spell shows that one is more powerful than the other intrinsicly. It's not a matter of Snape knowing something that Harry does not because they're both using the same spell. It's equal knowledge in that case. It's simply a matter of Snape being a more powerful wizard than Harry.

Thirdly, you could argue that there are spells Harry casts that are more powerful than cast by other wizards:

For example, in PoA his Patronus' power and effect is enormous, and Hermione herself comments on this comparing it not to other students but to fully developed wizards whose accounts are written off in her books.

Actually, Hermione does not make any comparisons at all. She merely says that it's very advanced magic - which would be consistent with what the adults believed because Lupin made the same claim. The DA learning the charm in OOTP proved that was just adults underestimating what the students were capable of, IMO.

Another example is Harry casting Crucio in DH on : now I know it sounds like an odd example but the reason I highlight it is the fact that actually flew across the room rather than simply being on the floor in pain. Harry lacked the malice in his heart to make it cripple the victim but the power of the spells was considerable.

Actually, he was just lifted into the air a bit, screamed in pain, and then smashed into the bookcase - which knocked him unconscious. We see a lot of people use Crucio to a greater effect so I don't see that as an example of Harry being more powerful than anyone else.

Fourthly, this is a highly debatable point but I stand by it and I'll explain why: you could argue that the first duel between Voldemort and Harry, the connective struggle issued by Priori Incantatem, was a measure of magic power. There are two reasons I think this:

a) there was nothing else affecting the duel; skill in magic, knowledge of magic, neither wizard was adversely affected more than the other.

b) the scenario of quite power-based - it was like a magical power struggle. If you read that entire duel in depth you'll see many references to a tug-of-war-esque battle and it was essentially a magical tug-of-war, one that Harry stood his ground in against Voldemort of all people.

Actually, that wasn't about power at all. If that were the case, Harry would certainly have lost because Voldemort was a great deal more powerful than he was. The wands connected because they were brother wands sharing a magical core from the same phoenix - Fawkes. That was a technicality that neither Harry nor Voldemort was prepared for. It is like a tug of war, but in this case it is a matter of who has the greater force of will - not who is more powerful magically. Harry is not performing a magical spell - he is using his determination to push those beads of light back towards Voldemort. Harry did have a lot more determination and a greater strength of will than Voldemort - he had more to fight for and more to live for than Voldemort did. Another significant factor there is that Harry's wand absorbed power from Voldemort's wand - things Harry did not know or understand. Dumbledore explained that in Kings Cross in DH.

Yeah I know what you mean now, and it's usually a difficult thing to define. I think the main issue we're having is that we disagree on this point: about Harry's magical power. I think it's considerably high on the basis of what I've read while you probably don't ^^.

Well, I'm not saying that Harry has no power at all - obviously he does or he wouldn't be able to do any magic. :lol: But Harry is not any more powerful than his peers - we are shown repeatedly that Harry is generally equal to his peers in terms of the amount of power displayed.

Yes I know, but my point was rather that most adults, most fully grown adult wizards who ARE taught the charm in NEWTS, fail to produce a corporeal Patronus. I know the other students could pull it off but my argument was that the DA group, combined with Harry's teaching, was more exceptional than you're led to believe; the way it was written made it seem easy but when you look at the fact, the truth is that these students have produced this piece of magic one or two years prematurely that the majority of others, older and more experienced in many cases, STILL can't produce.

Actually, Lupin says that many adults have difficulty with it - not that most cannot do it. That is a significant distinction. Having difficulty with a spell is not the same as not being able to do it all. Hermione has difficulty with the spell, but she is capable of producing a corporeal patronus and using it to drive dementors away. Hers is not as powerful, but she is capable of doing it.

The DA is a group of students with fairly average skills and power - as is Harry. They work together to learn defensive spells - mostly through practicing on each other. None of them were exceptional in terms of the amount of power they demonstrated - they were all fairly equal in that regard.

Though I would agree that confidence is a factor - we see that with Neville and Ron. Both are very insecure and lack confidence in themselves and that does have an effect on the power they demonstrate. When they overcome that and gain more confidence in themselves, they show more power. However, I would say that is a good example of them realizing what they were already capable of - they were born with the power, they just had to realize that for themselves.

I don't often criticise the writing, barely in fact, but I did think the way this part was written was a little underwhelming in conveying just how great a feat this was for the DA. Oh sure, it's said most adults can't do it even when they know the magic and have practised it/training in it, but the scope isn't conveyed appropriately IMO.

As I said above, that's not what the text says at all. Many adults have difficulty with it, but from what we are shown, most adult wizards can do it very well. The entire Order uses that as their means of communication - and did so during the first war as well.

The DA served as an example that kids should not be underestimated by adults. They were capable of more than the adults gave them credit for. That comes back in DH with Molly calling the DA "a teenagers gang" - she didn't give them credit for being able to defend themselves because they were kids. That was a common theme throughout the series. The DA didn't do anything out of the ordinary - for the most part, they were learning the spells that they should have been learning in class if Umbridge had been a proper teacher. Harry teaches them some of the other spells that he learned - things that Ron and Hermione helped him look up and practice in GOF - and they use the books that Lupin and Sirius gave Harry for Christmas as well. But all that showed was that the kids were capable of a lot more than the adults gave them credit for.

Yeah but it's explicitly stated that most adult wizards cannot produce the charm. Yes, most we meet can but that's because most of the adult wizards we meet are talented: they're not working at Borkin and Burkes or in a magical pub, they're Aurors or fairly senior Ministry officials: these aren't average adult wizards here, they're the exceptions.

Again, it's only stated that many have difficulty with it. We are shown that the majority can do it - regardless of their career choice. Mundungus Fletcher was a common criminal - not an Auror or a Ministry official. He can do the Patronus charm. Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones did not work for the Ministry in any capacity - they were just average citizens who joined the Order to fight against Voldemort. They could do the Patronus charm. James, Lily, Sirius, Lupin, and even Pettigrew - none of them worked for the Ministry and Pettigrew was not very powerful - they could all do the Patronus charm. Molly is a stay at home mom - she could do it. Everyone in the Order could do the Patronus charm - and not everyone in the Order was exceptionally powerful or had a career that would require them to be.

In this case I think we might be at crossed wires a bit, or at least from the sound of your argument. It sounds to me, just on a guess, that you're under the impression that most wizards don't learn it, that it's something off the school curriculum that Harry and DA just learned due to Lupin: this isn't the case. The charm is part of the NEWT level curriculum, it's stated in PoA and OotP, therefore every single adult that has graduated from Hogwarts and probably Beauxbatons AND Durmstrang has learnt the spell and the MAJORITY of these wizards can't produce the corporeal form of it.

That was what I said actually. The adults did not believe that the younger students could do it so it was not taught until NEWT level - when the majority of the students would be of age or almost of age - an adult in the wizarding world. Lupin tells Harry that many adults have difficulty with the charm, but the text shows us that the majority of adults can do it. Harry and the DA served as an example of the adults underestimating kids - the charm could easily be made part of the third year curriculum rather than holding off until NEWT level.

Agreed but again I think we simply disagree on the 'power' aspect here. Part of the problem is that by direct comparison most of the time one compares Harry to adult wizards which isn't a fair comparison.


Harry was an adult in DH - that's why I chose examples from that book. The point being - which was emphasized in the series as a whole - that kids were capable of a lot more than adults gave them credit for.

There are too many elements to take into consideration though: you could argue his use of the Elder Wand affected this too. In addition, we don't know if it was a particular way in which he moved his wand, mental focus etc. these are relevant because they can be learnt through practice; it's impossible to really know why and if it was something like wand movement or mental focus then it's something that could be taught rather than being innate. It's similar to fighting I suppose: better technique results in a person appearing stronger, in terms of brute force, than they really are and the same goes for magic: we see this with Neville alot and with wands.

Well, every spell had a particular wand movement necessary to cast it - i.e. swish and flick for Wingardium Leviosa. Dumbledore would of course have to do the correct wand movement for the spell to work at all. Focus and determination will go towards the spell working correctly as well. But the sheer, raw power of the spell comes from the wizard - though I do agree that the Elder wand would give Dumbledore a bit of a boost in power. However, Dumbledore was known to be very powerful before he ever got the Elder wand and he explained to Harry that the Elder wand would never have worked for him as well as it did for Harry so the bulk of that is Dumbledore's own power.

Neville is actually a good example of that because OOTP is where he begins to have confidence in himself and that is reflected in his true power finally being demonstrated. He was always capable of it - he just had to realize that for himself. At that time, he is using his father's wand - in HBP he gets a wand of his own. But the raw power came from Neville.

I'd like to highlight this point because it's exactly something I hinted at earlier in my post: Voldemort and Dumbledore are definitely powerful wizards but they're placed on virtually mythic pedestals, often their capabilities are blown into larger proportions due to the very same thing: things like "most brilliant student Hogwarts as ever known" etc. is hyperbole, no matter how good Dumbledore may have been, and is just as hyperbolic as stories of Harry therefore it's very hard to discern the actual truth without a direct comparison of which we have very little. We actually see Harry grow, struggle, etc. we don't see Dumbledore or Voldemort extensively do this, simply hear favourable accounts from their teachers and thus it's heavily steeped in bias.

The difference being that we see Dumbledore and Voldemort exhibit extraordinary power on page. They are both very powerful wizards. It's not just rumor and legend because their magical feats hold up to the stories about them.

That's not the case with Harry. The wizarding world believes him to be this super powerful being because they believe he somehow defeated Voldemort as a baby. But that's myth rather than fact - the fact was that Lily defeated Voldemort by invoking ancient magic with her sacrifice that protected Harry - essentially shielding him so that Voldemort's curse rebounded. Harry was given credit for something he never did. He certainly grows as a wizard as he gets older, but his power and skill remains on par with that of his peers - he does not stand out among them because they are all shown to be capable of the same things that he is.

Indeed, but the fact he was able to even cast the spell rather than have his wand give up on him displays a blurry 'wall' of magical aptitude.

Crabbe and Goyle both displayed some aptitude - at least towards the Dark Arts because they enjoyed that. But Crabbe still lacks the power to control what he conjured. Hermione explained that Fiendfyre was very dangerous - which was why she never even considered attempting to use it even though she knew it would destroy a Horcrux.

You see this is fairly interpretive. I'll definitely agree that Harry is presented as a fairly normal boy at the beginning of the series but as it moves on I honestly don't see him as anything ordinary, neither in his actions OR his magical power; to me it was more a story of growth and a typical hero's tale where the hero overcomes adverse odds because of strength he gains outside of himself (love, compassion, etc.) however it doesn't disapprove his own power BECAUSE the odds he's up against are simply not fair.

It's not the amount of magical power that makes a hero though - particularly not in Harry's case. He's not a hero because he's extremely powerful. He's a hero because he has a "saving people thing", a strong sense of duty, a huge capacity for love and compassion, loyalty, courage, nobility, a strong sense of right and wrong, a great deal of determination, and a strong force of will. It is his personality traits that make him a hero - not his magical power or skill.

Harry does face extraordinary odds - but it was never is magical power that caused him to succeed.

PS/SS - he succeeds through determination by holding on to Quirrell in spite of the pain it causes him because he figured out it caused Quirrell pain as well. He held on until Dumbledore got there to take care of the rest.

COS - he succeeds because Fawkes brings him the Sorting Hat, which gives him Gryffindor's Sword. Fawkes also punctured the basilisks eyes so Harry could fight it without having to worry about dying or being petrified because he looked at the snake's eyes or saw them reflected. He does not use magic to kill the basilisk - he stabs it with the sword. He does not use magic to destroy the diary - he stabs it with the basilisk fang. He demonstrates courage and determination - but no particular magical skill.

POA - he succeeds because Hermione had a time turner that allowed him to go back in time to rescue Buckbeak and use Buckbeak to rescue Sirius. He casts a patronus, but this is done a good distance away from the dementors so he is not affected by them at all and he got a confidence boost in that he realized he had already seen himself do it.

GOF - he succeeds in the tournament due to Crouch Jr. intervening and making sure he knows about the dragons, Dobby gives him gillyweed, and Ron and Hermione help him learn extra defensive spells - which they also learn along with him. He displays no exceptional magical ability there.

He succeeds in the graveyard because of the connection with the wands and shows he has greater determination and a stronger force of will than Voldemort. He displays no exceptional magical ability there either - the summoning charm was something everyone had learned in Charms class that year.

OOTP - He and his friends were saved by the Order and Dumbledore. The six of them do fairly well at defending themselves to a point, but without the Order showing up, that would not have ended well because the Death Eaters had the upper hand. Dumbledore saves him from Voldemort - though Harry's capacity for love and grief over Sirius dying prevented Voldemort from being able to possess him for long. We also learn that the other students were also capable of learning the Patronus charm.

HBP - He fails in this one because it comes down to power and Snape is more powerful than he is.

DH - He succeeds on a technicality with the Elder wand and survives because Voldemort took his blood - which gave him a tether to life so he had a choice between staying dead and returning to life.

At no point in the series does Harry succeed by displaying magical power or skill that is any greater than any of his peers. He is shown to be equal to his peers in terms of power, but his personality traits make him a hero in spite of that.

In addition, if we consider the fact he becomes Head Auror in 5 years only (3 years of the 8 are training) then I can't see how he's an average or even "good" wizard. To become Head Auror so quickly he would have to rise above many other Aurors; Aurors, who in themselves are fairly exceptional combatitive wizards at that. In my eyes, the entire story depicts a normal, average boy in Philosopher's Stone, "just Harry", who is and thus becomes so much more, both down to his actions, the adversity that is forced upon him AND because he's not so normal after all. The fact he begins his adventures as being normal, that he is raised in unflattering surroundings etc. doesn't mean he IS normal at all.

That would be a matter of perspective. Tonks was a good Auror, but she was not a very powerful witch. Dawlish was a good Auror, but not a very powerful wizard. Moody was a retired Auror was an amazing reputation for having captured most of the Dark Wizards who were in Azkaban - but he doesn't display a level of power higher than anyone else. An Auror is basically a policeman - the bulk of that is going to be investigative work. Gathering evidence, acquiring information, finding clues, logical deduction - basically the same stuff that Harry did nearly every year he was at Hogwarts. Harry was basically training to be an Auror from the first moment he wondered what Fluffy was guarding in PS/SS. There might also be undercover work - like Kingsley being assigned to guard the muggle Prime Minister in the guise of a secretary. Harry had the skills he needed to be a good Auror - he demonstrated that at the age of 11 - and his experience and reputation would allow for him to rise through the ranks. But that doesn't make him more powerful than the other Aurors.

For me that depends on how he was 'super powerful'. If he started off being super powerful then sure but that, for me, was the advantage of him being a boy wizard: even if he were a legendary wizard in waiting, the fact he was a boy would've meant he couldn't have taken on Voldemort and the Death Eaters like it was cakewalk.

Starting off super powerful would've been stupid agreed but growing into it? Not so much IMO.

He's not a super powerful wizard at the end either - he wins on a technicality with the Elder wand rather than any awesome display of magical power. Harry doesn't achieve anything above or beyond what his peers achieve in that regard - he points out their duels as he makes his way through and they're doing as well - or better - than he did.

That's not to say that Harry's not powerful at all - just that he's on par with his peers in that regard. What makes Harry stand out is not his magical power - it is his capacity for love and the personality traits that make him a hero.

He's not a super powerful wizard at the end either - he wins on a technicality with the Elder wand rather than any awesome display of magical power. Harry doesn't achieve anything above or beyond what his peers achieve in that regard - he points out their duels as he makes his way through and they're doing as well - or better - than he did.

That's not to say that Harry's not powerful at all - just that he's on par with his peers in that regard. What makes Harry stand out is not his magical power - it is his capacity for love and the personality traits that make him a hero.

I Agree with your point. I would only point out that the 'technicality associated with the Elder Wand' wasn't something Harry was certain about. He wasn't sure if he was its master - he'd never even touched it; and he couldn't be sure it remained so even if he had won it from Draco - because Voldemort actually possessed it and "defeated" Harry with it by AK'ing him - technically killing him, but since both came back to life, that was a wash, but nonetheless it was Voldemort who showed all the magical power and ability there comparatively since they both 'came back', imo. So Harry had to have faith that the wand would have transferred to him from Draco - but also that the wand would value "love" as a greater power than magic too - as Dumbledore did - in order to have remained master of the wand. Here again, imo, what you really have is Harry placing all his faith in the power of love once again, imo.

As I said above, I would have loved the big duel, but we didn't get that. But I don't feel JKR totally wimped out on the ending with a technical glitch being the way Voldemort died. She had stressed threw 7 books that "love" would be Voldy's downfall and I think that is what she took pains to show in the end. It also happened to be Harry's greatest strength, imo, that he'd give himself over to it. Someone else may have tried their luck with a different wand or something else altogether - but Harry banked on a power greater than magic, imo.

Jo addressed the issue of young children having uncontrolled bursts of magic - that was actually quite common with magical children. Typically caused by strong emotion - particularly anger or fear - young children will often have such "power surges" in which they do something spontaneous. For example, Fred was very angry when Ron broke his toy broomstick and transfigured Ron's teddy bear into a spider when he was 4 years old. He did not know the spell necessary for that - he was just angry and wishing to punish Ron. It was a spontaneous burst of magic.

There is a distinction made with Voldemort and Snape when they were children - we see that on page. Both demonstrated a high level of control over their magic and were able to do things deliberately rather than having uncontrolled bursts of magic in spite of the fact that neither had been trained or taught how to do spells - though Snape would have some advantage there in knowing that he was a wizard to begin with. Given what we're shown regarding Dumbledore, I would say that would be true for him as well.

I wasn't aware of the distinction with regards Snape at least, if you're talking about the branch falling on Petunia then to me that was fairly ambigious - it wasn't apparent whether it was intentional or caused simply be a surge of emotion towards her. Furthermore, I personally put alot of Tom Riddle's control of his magic due to his malice - it's true that he did exhibit a considerable degree of control but someone like Harry wouldn't have explored that control, even if he could do it, because he had no reason to: Tom's control was most born from his malicious intentions.

Well, that's a matter of perspective I guess. For me, raw power would be the more significant factor because, if you don't have that power to begin with, then you can study all you want and it wouldn't make any difference. If all it took was studying and learning spells, then anyone could do magic - muggles included. The power they are born with is what makes the difference.

Another factor there - James and Sirius did not study all that much. We see that on page as well. Like Harry and Ron, they were rather lazy about doing their school work and studying. But they still demonstrate a lot of power in the magic they do.

In fact it requires both, but we don't see whether Harry would've been capable on it in terms of raw power because he didn't have the academic knowledge required - that was my point.

I wasn't referring to potions by the way - I agree that would be studying and learning how the different ingredients worked because making a potion is really not a measure of power. I was referring to the spells that Snape invented - muffliato, Sectumsempra, the toenail hex, etc...

I don't consider inventing a powerful spell a mere academic achievement - sticking with Lockhart, I would say he was too weak in terms of his raw power to be capable of inventing a spell regardless of how much he might have studied or practiced. He just didn't have the power to pull it off.

This is impossible to discern though because we do not know as to how spell invention works. It may be a combination of academics, discipline and power, or it may be a combination of only 2 of those things, or 1, we have no idea.

The thing with Harry's generation is that none of them really stand out. Hermione gets the best grades, but practical application shows the amount of power she has to be fairly average. We see the majority of the students in Harry's generation performing magic and their skills are fairly equal overall - particularly in DH.

Which again is exactly why I place alot of the previous generation's exceptionality on hyperbole. It's debatable whether they 'stood' out as much when they were actually at school, regardless of whether they did indeed stand out or not, as they do when spoken of in the past tense. History has a tendancy to elevate its exceptions to dizzying heights.


Power cannot be taught. You either have it or you don't. As I said before, if it were simply a matter of studying, then muggles could do magic as well. But - as Jo explained - a muggle could study the spells and get a wand and it wouldn't make any difference. They still wouldn't be able to do magic because they have no magical power.

Witches and wizards are shown to have varying levels of power - some are inherently more powerful than others. This is not a matter of how much they study or learn - the amount of power they have is something they are born with. Hermione puts a lot of effort into her studies, but that doesn't make her very powerful - she knows a lot, but she's not going to be blasting through doors with a stunning spell.

Yes, power can't be taught but the point of my argument wasn't about power, it was describing the fact that the strength of a spell is based on more than simple power. The technique of the wand movement allows the power you DO have to be channelled better as does the focus of your mind, and these are things that CAN be taught. It's fairly reasonable to assume that an adult and more experienced wizard would be more adept in both things and therefore exuberate a higher level of alleged power.

This is completely interpretive with regards to the context. Yes, I agree all magic-users have varying levels of power but being able to actually identify that raw power from spell use is a more complicated thing than simply seeing how strong the spell is. It's clearly shown in the book that the more focused you are when casting a spell, the more powerful it is, and the more appropriate your wand movement (think the Levitation charm for example) the better the spell is pulled off; right there we've identified an additional two factors in the strength of spells and there may very well be more. Because of that, unless you succeed in eliminating those other confounding factors it's almost impossible to tell how much a powerful spell cast is based on power or technique. It becomes even more blurry when you consider the comparison between adults and children.

Snape and Harry using the same spell shows that one is more powerful than the other intrinsicly. It's not a matter of Snape knowing something that Harry does not because they're both using the same spell. It's equal knowledge in that case. It's simply a matter of Snape being a more powerful wizard than Harry.

I don't agree at all and I think this is a very simplistic extrapolation of the spell casts - as I've mentioned above, we're clearly shown that there are other factors in producing a powerful spell and in many cases I'd expect an adult to be more adept in those factors due to greater experience and practice.

Actually, Hermione does not make any comparisons at all. She merely says that it's very advanced magic - which would be consistent with what the adults believed because Lupin made the same claim. The DA learning the charm in OOTP proved that was just adults underestimating what the students were capable of, IMO.

This is true, I got mixed up with something else!

Actually, he was just lifted into the air a bit, screamed in pain, and then smashed into the bookcase - which knocked him unconscious. We see a lot of people use Crucio to a greater effect so I don't see that as an example of Harry being more powerful than anyone else.

The only example I've seen of it being used to greater or the same effect was Voldemort lifting Harry's alleged dead body from the ground with it, otherwise it produces the expected result but nothing more.

Actually, that wasn't about power at all. If that were the case, Harry would certainly have lost because Voldemort was a great deal more powerful than he was. The wands connected because they were brother wands sharing a magical core from the same phoenix - Fawkes. That was a technicality that neither Harry nor Voldemort was prepared for. It is like a tug of war, but in this case it is a matter of who has the greater force of will - not who is more powerful magically. Harry is not performing a magical spell - he is using his determination to push those beads of light back towards Voldemort. Harry did have a lot more determination and a greater strength of will than Voldemort - he had more to fight for and more to live for than Voldemort did. Another significant factor there is that Harry's wand absorbed power from Voldemort's wand - things Harry did not know or understand. Dumbledore explained that in Kings Cross in DH.

I know what happened, thank you :)

Dumbledore didn't explain that because his description of the event was more abstract than that; because of that I find it highly interpretive regardless of the decision come to from it. He describes Harry's courage winning through and a quality in him that Voldemort did not know of but nothing more or nothing less, and due to that it could be interpreted that his courage actually WON the duel or that his courage ALLOWED him to win the duel ie. he faced Voldemort head on rather than running like most would and this allowed him to win the duel.

In addition, courage, emotions, etc. could in fact be a PART of magical power rather than an exonic factor, and in fact this is hinted at many times in the series.

Well, I'm not saying that Harry has no power at all - obviously he does or he wouldn't be able to do any magic. :lol: But Harry is not any more powerful than his peers - we are shown repeatedly that Harry is generally equal to his peers in terms of the amount of power displayed.

Yeah of course, but I think it's higher than his peers: not significantly higher but as the books go on I feel his power begins to grow beyond his peers, like an exponential increase that starts off barely noticible (and behind others in fact) but becomes ever increasing. In fact, even the Sorting Hat in PS states that Harry has talent, and the fact 'talent' is mentioned suggests that it isn't just an ordinary amount of talent; in OotP he also wandlessly casts a spell, something that only two other wizards are shown to be capable of (Dumbledore and Voldemort); in HBP and DH he casts a fair few wordless spells which, while we see more than just Dumbledore and Voldemort accomplish, the only other student we see pulling this off is Hermione.

In addition, in interviews including Pottercast JK herself has stated that:

1. Up to GoF, Hermione would've beaten every other student in her year in a duel.
2. By GoF, Harry would've given as good as he got against Hermione.
3. By OotP and beyond Harry would've beaten Hermione and the rest of the DA in a duel.

If you add the three statements together it's pretty clear: By OotP Harry would beat every other student in his year in a duel, and that quite explicitly debukes and conflicts with your belief that Harry is on equal terms with his peers. It's arguable how much of this is knowledge or not but that's exactly the point: there are many blurred lines when considering a wizard's combat prowess and apparent 'power'.

Other than those statements it's all interpretive as it's never explicitly stated; there's no power-level indicating that people can read from one another so it's usually very analogue and undefined but there are hints dropped hither and thither that point to Harry being exceptional; none are too extreme, for he is a child wizard after all and it would be ridiculous, but there are events, or sometimes the timing of events, like those stated above that indicate it.

Actually, Lupin says that many adults have difficulty with it - not that most cannot do it. That is a significant distinction. Having difficulty with a spell is not the same as not being able to do it all. Hermione has difficulty with the spell, but she is capable of producing a corporeal patronus and using it to drive dementors away. Hers is not as powerful, but she is capable of doing it.

I read 'having difficulty' with it to suggest that most can produce the misty version of it but not a corporeal version of it; that may very well be conjectural interpretation but unfortunately, since the text is ambigious, either conclusion you may is going to be highly interpretive.

The DA is a group of students with fairly average skills and power - as is Harry. They work together to learn defensive spells - mostly through practicing on each other. None of them were exceptional in terms of the amount of power they demonstrated - they were all fairly equal in that regard.

How do you define average skills and power though, who can you possibly compare them to? The only time we see them, as a group without others, engage in magical combat is against Death Eaters, fully-fledged dark wizards of above ordinary power and none of them die.

This is the problem - it's impossible to explicitly define their power or skill because there is no benchmark to hold them against.

Though I would agree that confidence is a factor - we see that with Neville and Ron. Both are very insecure and lack confidence in themselves and that does have an effect on the power they demonstrate. When they overcome that and gain more confidence in themselves, they show more power. However, I would say that is a good example of them realizing what they were already capable of - they were born with the power, they just had to realize that for themselves.

It's also technique and wand, Neville is using a wand not intended for him and his technique is poor - again, the wand movement of the Levitation charm is a perfect example of technique influencing the 'power' of a spell.

As I said above, that's not what the text says at all. Many adults have difficulty with it, but from what we are shown, most adult wizards can do it very well. The entire Order uses that as their means of communication - and did so during the first war as well.

The text is ambigious (as seems to be the case alot >.<) but even in its ambigious form it shows that fully-fledged wizards have trouble with a spell that Harry, at 13 years of age, does not. In addition, again using the Order as an example of comparison isn't the best because they're not ordinary wizards at all, not by any stretch.

The DA served as an example that kids should not be underestimated by adults. They were capable of more than the adults gave them credit for. That comes back in DH with Molly calling the DA "a teenagers gang" - she didn't give them credit for being able to defend themselves because they were kids. That was a common theme throughout the series. The DA didn't do anything out of the ordinary - for the most part, they were learning the spells that they should have been learning in class if Umbridge had been a proper teacher. Harry teaches them some of the other spells that he learned - things that Ron and Hermione helped him look up and practice in GOF - and they use the books that Lupin and Sirius gave Harry for Christmas as well. But all that showed was that the kids were capable of a lot more than the adults gave them credit for.

Yes, I agree it was a common theme but where I disagree is that it was the ONLY theme ^^.

Again, it's only stated that many have difficulty with it. We are shown that the majority can do it - regardless of their career choice. Mundungus Fletcher was a common criminal - not an Auror or a Ministry official. He can do the Patronus charm. Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones did not work for the Ministry in any capacity - they were just average citizens who joined the Order to fight against Voldemort. They could do the Patronus charm. James, Lily, Sirius, Lupin, and even Pettigrew - none of them worked for the Ministry and Pettigrew was not very powerful - they could all do the Patronus charm. Molly is a stay at home mom - she could do it. Everyone in the Order could do the Patronus charm - and not everyone in the Order was exceptionally powerful or had a career that would require them to be.

I would agree on Mundungus and Pettigrew, and I would not agree nor disagree on Diggle or Jones because we don't see enough of them to judge, however many of the other examples are from talented wizards and witches; again, talented doesn't need to be omnipotent but simply having an above average affinity, even an average citizen or a stay-at-home-Mum can be above average and Molly suggests this by killing Bellatrix herself.

That was what I said actually. The adults did not believe that the younger students could do it so it was not taught until NEWT level - when the majority of the students would be of age or almost of age - an adult in the wizarding world. Lupin tells Harry that many adults have difficulty with the charm, but the text shows us that the majority of adults can do it. Harry and the DA served as an example of the adults underestimating kids - the charm could easily be made part of the third year curriculum rather than holding off until NEWT level.

The text mostly depicts the use of it from wizards who aren't performing ordinary roles and are not in ordinary situations however.

Harry was an adult in DH - that's why I chose examples from that book. The point being - which was emphasized in the series as a whole - that kids were capable of a lot more than adults gave them credit for.

He was of age, that's not the same thing as being an adult: he was 17 years old, that's not an adult, not by a long stretch and certainly not when it comes to technique and training which has no real limitation and will only grow as with your years.

Well, every spell had a particular wand movement necessary to cast it - i.e. swish and flick for Wingardium Leviosa. Dumbledore would of course have to do the correct wand movement for the spell to work at all. Focus and determination will go towards the spell working correctly as well. But the sheer, raw power of the spell comes from the wizard - though I do agree that the Elder wand would give Dumbledore a bit of a boost in power. However, Dumbledore was known to be very powerful before he ever got the Elder wand and he explained to Harry that the Elder wand would never have worked for him as well as it did for Harry so the bulk of that is Dumbledore's own power.

I agree but the main point of my argument here was to show that there are so many factors in discerning the power of a spell that it's very hard to explicitly define the power of the wizard; in order to do so you'd need to somehow tear it away from technique, focus, their wand etc. and then there's the factor he's an adult aswell...a well learned adult at that.

The difference being that we see Dumbledore and Voldemort exhibit extraordinary power on page. They are both very powerful wizards. It's not just rumor and legend because their magical feats hold up to the stories about them.

We see them exhibit that but when one of them is over 70 years old and the other over 100 :lol: - 70 and 100 years, respectively, of magical development, training, study etc. using immensely powerful spells that even if Harry were capable of using he would not use within the books because he simply doesn't know them.

It's not the amount of magical power that makes a hero though - particularly not in Harry's case. He's not a hero because he's extremely powerful. He's a hero because he has a "saving people thing", a strong sense of duty, a huge capacity for love and compassion, loyalty, courage, nobility, a strong sense of right and wrong, a great deal of determination, and a strong force of will. It is his personality traits that make him a hero - not his magical power or skill.

Yes I know, I was purely describing the 'hero's journey' which is the path that Harry Potter takes; it's a common 'layout' of an epic that's come all the way from Greek tales, and it describes a hero that is victorous through things other than his power (Darth Vader in SW is a perfect example). My point here is that it does not approve or disapprove the power of the hero though, it simply makes it a relatively obselete factor in the story.

Harry does face extraordinary odds - but it was never is magical power that caused him to succeed.

PS/SS - he succeeds through determination by holding on to Quirrell in spite of the pain it causes him because he figured out it caused Quirrell pain as well. He held on until Dumbledore got there to take care of the rest.

COS - he succeeds because Fawkes brings him the Sorting Hat, which gives him Gryffindor's Sword. Fawkes also punctured the basilisks eyes so Harry could fight it without having to worry about dying or being petrified because he looked at the snake's eyes or saw them reflected. He does not use magic to kill the basilisk - he stabs it with the sword. He does not use magic to destroy the diary - he stabs it with the basilisk fang. He demonstrates courage and determination - but no particular magical skill.

POA - he succeeds because Hermione had a time turner that allowed him to go back in time to rescue Buckbeak and use Buckbeak to rescue Sirius. He casts a patronus, but this is done a good distance away from the dementors so he is not affected by them at all and he got a confidence boost in that he realized he had already seen himself do it.

GOF - he succeeds in the tournament due to Crouch Jr. intervening and making sure he knows about the dragons, Dobby gives him gillyweed, and Ron and Hermione help him learn extra defensive spells - which they also learn along with him. He displays no exceptional magical ability there.

OOTP - He and his friends were saved by the Order and Dumbledore. The six of them do fairly well at defending themselves to a point, but without the Order showing up, that would not have ended well because the Death Eaters had the upper hand. Dumbledore saves him from Voldemort - though Harry's capacity for love and grief over Sirius dying prevented Voldemort from being able to possess him for long. We also learn that the other students were also capable of learning the Patronus charm.

HBP - He fails in this one because it comes down to power and Snape is more powerful than he is.

DH - He succeeds on a technicality with the Elder wand and survives because Voldemort took his blood - which gave him a tether to life so he had a choice between staying dead and returning to life.

At no point in the series does Harry succeed by displaying magical power or skill that is any greater than any of his peers. He is shown to be equal to his peers in terms of power, but his personality traits make him a hero in spite of that.

There's a fine line here where we differ in opinion: I agree that he does not gain his ending victories in any of those books due to magical power but I disagree that he does not exhibit considerable magical power and skill WITHIN those books. Again, even the Sorting Hat takes it upon itself to point out he has talent.

That would be a matter of perspective. Tonks was a good Auror, but she was not a very powerful witch. Dawlish was a good Auror, but not a very powerful wizard. Moody was a retired Auror was an amazing reputation for having captured most of the Dark Wizards who were in Azkaban - but he doesn't display a level of power higher than anyone else. An Auror is basically a policeman - the bulk of that is going to be investigative work. Gathering evidence, acquiring information, finding clues, logical deduction - basically the same stuff that Harry did nearly every year he was at Hogwarts. Harry was basically training to be an Auror from the first moment he wondered what Fluffy was guarding in PS/SS. There might also be undercover work - like Kingsley being assigned to guard the muggle Prime Minister in the guise of a secretary. Harry had the skills he needed to be a good Auror - he demonstrated that at the age of 11 - and his experience and reputation would allow for him to rise through the ranks. But that doesn't make him more powerful than the other Aurors.

I think we'll definitely have to agree to disagree here: my view of the Aurors is completely different from yours; policeman lack one variable that Aurors have that can affect their effectiveness at catching criminals and that is magical power. Because of that very variable, Aurors have something extra affect how good they are and I don't think it's fair to completely remove it nor do I think the comparison is fair. I know what you mean by the comparison but I think the inclusion of magical power is an important one: if one Auror is more powerful than another then that will affect how good they are yet it's not like one policeman can be more powerful than another (except physically of course, of which has very little effect if you consider gun fighting) because there's no variable there to affect such a thing.

And on the topic of Tonks: she was clumsy, not necessarily the same thing as weak.

He's not a super powerful wizard at the end either - he wins on a technicality with the Elder wand rather than any awesome display of magical power. Harry doesn't achieve anything above or beyond what his peers achieve in that regard - he points out their duels as he makes his way through and they're doing as well - or better - than he did.

Even at the end of the books I don't deem him close to being an adult; in all honesty the vast majority of people do not fully mature, either physically, mentally (and thus IMO, magically), hormonally or in terms of experience until they're out of their teens; 17 years old is not an adult age. Even if he were a legend in waiting (not that I necessarily think he is) he wouldn't defeat Voldemort at 17 years old in terms of raw power and skill, it really doesn't matter, because his foe would be among the most skillful and powerful ADULT wizards ever conceived.

Think of it as simply as this: Level 17 Super Wizard vs. Level 71 Super Wizard - 71 wins! :lol: ; obviously simplistic but gets my point across. So of course he'd need to win on a technicality otherwise it would be utterly farcicle.

Especially mentally and experience-wise I don't consider him near an adult: he still exhibits child-like toughtless reactions that adults do not (like vengeful Crucio because of McGonagall being spat on), he still has a strong and child-like lure to the Hallows at one point envisioning himself kicking Voldemort's *** with them (very kid-like imagination), he lacks mental discipline and stability that comes with age, he's only lived 17 years and only 6 of which were magical and he's still in adolescence for crying out loud!

Harry is not an adult at the end of DH, no way IMO. In some ways he's very mature but that doesn't make him an adult.

Regardless, I think we'll need to agree to disagree here ^^. IMO many of the keypoints in our arguments are very, VERY ambigious in the books and highly prone to interpretation. Much of the definitions of magical power are relative - they shift with the time, the stakes, the emotions of the wizard etc. and are also affected by technique and mental focus; there's so many elements and variables to take into account, so much moving in the story that you only get an overall 'taste' of someone's magical power and that view or opinion can vastly change from person to person on the cumulative basis of small things. In all truth I can see us arguing here til dawn and still not coming to a proper conclusion because there is nothing to specifically recite that approves of disapproves either of us IMO; and in fact, I think that's how JK intended it: that it be heavily open to interpretation how powerful Harry really is.

I'd just like to comment on Harry's use of Unforgivables. It's about time. It was completely necessary to use the Imperius Curse at Gringotts. And it's not like he made them do something dangerous or humiliating, all he did was what was going to keep the trio alive. I wish that in the books there was greater use of those curses (not Crucio, I really hate that one) from the good side. They always seem to be crushed by their unwillingness to cause destruction, and therefore are always disadvantaged by Death Eaters spamming AK. I don't think the readers would have minded Harry firing off a few Killing Curses at Death Eaters in the battles at Hogwarts.

EDIT: Ok, I have to also comment on his final sacrifice. I think it was an extremely foolish thing to do at that point in time. Although he desperately needed not to change his mind, I think it was a bad move to do that without ensuring Nagini was dead first. Because, as evidenced by the Battle, it took three extremely powerful wizards to fend Voldemort off, and if the snake was still alive, he wouldn't have died. However, when viewed from the perspective of his courage and love for all his friends, I understand why his Polyjuice was pure gold. It's not something that just anyone would have done, and I think that he really deserved to live on after that. I think it was almost a fitting "reward" that his sacrifice didn't have to be a sacrifice at all. I also would like to say that I thought that was one of the saddest moments in all my history of reading in all my life, especially when he was talking to Lily. That's probably all I have to comment on for now.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?

I think that Harry wouldve been more or less the same as he is. His parents were smart, brave, loyal, and true qualities the Dursley's wouldve squashed out of him but I do believe that some changes wouldve occured some for the better some for worse. The first would be Harry's temper, Harry's temper gets a hold of him when he feels under appreciated or is being told what he finds ignorant or condescending. I also think that if he did grow up with his parents he wouldnt have been able to sacrifice himself to make the world he'd leave behind a better place, he wouldnt have that level of bravery, he wouldnt be able to stare death in the face and accept that his sacrifice is what he had to do. Now an orphanage wouldve made Harry much worse Harry wouldve been even angry he wouldnt have any better qualities and I think the feeling of disconnect that he felt in the OotP wouldve been with him from a young age.

2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?

I believe the first incident of Harry's for lack of a better term "saving people" thing wouldve been the rememberall, although the Troll was alot more life threatening he showed himself to be compassionate and selfsacricing as Madam Hooch had threatened expulsion while none of the other students wouldve dared to get on their broom, Harry,who wouldve gone back to a life with the Dursley's, didnt hesitate to put his neck on the line to help another, but you could make an arguement that half of the reason Harry did this was because it was Malfoy who was trying to bully Neville and that Harry wanted to show him up.

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?

Harry's curiosity i believe can be attributed to his life at the Dursley's because he mustve believed that there was something special about him even then his uneventful life and the mysterious scar, I believe he always knew something was up and when he was told he was a wizard it didnt take alot for him to believe Hagrid. While at Hogwarts Harry's curiosity saved him others and the world plenty of times but I believe he was risking it everytime he did as his recklessness often put him in the situations where the world was at stake.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?

There is no one greatest strength of Harry as he wouldnt have been able to pass half of the trials without all of his resources, without Loyalty he wouldnt have made it out of the chamber of secrets, without Selflessness he wouldnt have been able to walk through the forbidden forest to sacrifice himself. Without bravery he wouldve died in the Graveyard without Cedric. And without Determination he wouldnt have stopped Quirell from getting the Sorcerer's Stone. Harry Potter is a Gryffindor through and through and everything he prized defeated Lord Voldemort. The one trait I think Harry improved on was his empathy he after all the torture Malfoy put him through could feel sorry for him and his family.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?

Cedric- Cedric's death mustve driven Harry's determination which could often be mistaken as stubborness

Sirius- Sirius's death made Harry calm and resilient Harry was much more grounded and much less angry after the loss of Sirius had passed.

Dumbledore- His Loyalty to Dumbledore after his death was amazing even when he had his doubts when he found out about the Deathly Hallows he pushed on with the Horcruxes because of his hero.

Snape- After viewing the memories of Snape, Harry, I believe.mustve gotten a deep understranding of sacrifice as Snape had sacrificed so much that Harry although loathed Snape before knew Snape for what he had done and I believ that Snape's example allowed Harry to walk away from safety, from his friends, from what he'd known into death.

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?

Harry chose the high ground, he even through anger and pain never sought to kill and always tried to save the ones he loved (ex. Sirius)

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?

The Imperius Curse was neccasary he couldnt have tried to just hex eveyone in the building and it was for the Horcrux.

The use of Crucio was in my opinion out of pure respect toward McGonogall who he had always had deep admirration for and she was like a mother figure to him but not to the extent of Mrs. Weasley but he had showed his temper again as there were plenty of options I think he couldnt allow Carrow to talk to McGonogall like that and couldnt control it.
8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

Look at the sacrifices.

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?

I think Harry had learned plenty of tricks and alot about Dark Magic i would bet that he and Ron used there experiences and unique knowledge of wizardry to combat the Dark Arts.

EDIT: Ok, I have to also comment on his final sacrifice. I think it was an extremely foolish thing to do at that point in time. Although he desperately needed not to change his mind, I think it was a bad move to do that without ensuring Nagini was dead first.

I think Harry gave that job to Neville, because he knew Neville would finish off Nagini at whatever the cost.

But I also think there was another reason for Harry going into the Forest before Nagini was killed. Nagini was always with Voldemort and Harry would not be able to access her alone, especially since Voldemort kept her in a protective cage.

All the horcruxes, except Nagini were destroyed. Voldemort was there and Harry's soul bit.

Harry's walk into the Forest would take care of the soul bit. He knew and trusted Neville to take care of Nagini and he knew Voldemort would become mortal once the soul bit and Nagini were gone. Then he could be taken down by the other wizards, aurors and everyone who had gathered in Hogwarts to fight IMO.

If Harry really felt this way at the time of HBP, he is a remarkably magnanimous person because he obviously has fully forgiven Snape's diabolical actions 20 years later. Or that way it felt to me, since he gave his son Snape's name.

I think that one of the points of the books was that Harry was both magnaminous and compassionate.

I think that one of the points of the books was that Harry was both magnaminous and compassionate.

I know, that's what I was saying. :huh:

I Agree with your point. I would only point out that the 'technicality associated with the Elder Wand' wasn't something Harry was certain about. He wasn't sure if he was its master - he'd never even touched it; and he couldn't be sure it remained so even if he had won it from Draco - because Voldemort actually possessed it and "defeated" Harry with it by AK'ing him - technically killing him, but since both came back to life, that was a wash, but nonetheless it was Voldemort who showed all the magical power and ability there comparatively since they both 'came back', imo. So Harry had to have faith that the wand would have transferred to him from Draco - but also that the wand would value "love" as a greater power than magic too - as Dumbledore did - in order to have remained master of the wand. Here again, imo, what you really have is Harry placing all his faith in the power of love once again, imo.

As I said above, I would have loved the big duel, but we didn't get that. But I don't feel JKR totally wimped out on the ending with a technical glitch being the way Voldemort died. She had stressed threw 7 books that "love" would be Voldy's downfall and I think that is what she took pains to show in the end. It also happened to be Harry's greatest strength, imo, that he'd give himself over to it. Someone else may have tried their luck with a different wand or something else altogether - but Harry banked on a power greater than magic, imo.

I agree. Another significant point on that is the fact that Jo chose to have Dumbledore emphasize that in HBP in his discussions with Harry. Destroying all of the Horcruxes would make Voldemort "mortal" in that he would no longer have anything tethering him to life and could be killed. But Dumbledore makes a point to emphasize to Harry that Voldemort would still be a very powerful wizard and difficult to defeat even without his Horcruxes. In terms of power, magical skill, and just general knowledge about magic, Harry was never a match for Voldemort and Dumbledore was fully aware of that. If it came down to a fair duel without either of them having an advantage due to some technicality, then Voldemort would most likely win because he was a lot more powerful than Harry in addition to having a lot more experience and knowledge overall. Where Harry had the advantage over Voldemort was in his capacity for love and the strength of his determination. He acts on faith that the Elder wand will come to him and his faith is rewarded.

I wasn't aware of the distinction with regards Snape at least, if you're talking about the branch falling on Petunia then to me that was fairly ambigious - it wasn't apparent whether it was intentional or caused simply be a surge of emotion towards her. Furthermore, I personally put alot of Tom Riddle's control of his magic due to his malice - it's true that he did exhibit a considerable degree of control but someone like Harry wouldn't have explored that control, even if he could do it, because he had no reason to: Tom's control was most born from his malicious intentions.

That was one example of Snape doing magic intentionally - Lily called him on that on page and both she and Harry could tell that Snape was lying when he claimed not to have done it on purpose. However, Snape was doing magic in general at that time as well. Lily was concerned about being sent to Azkaban because they had been doing magic, but Snape told her they didn't have to worry about that because they haven't gotten their letters yet or purchased wands. And he was right - any magic they did would have been attributed to being accidental. The advantage that Snape had in that was that he grew up knowing that he was a wizard and was practicing his magic from a young age.

Riddle's control stemmed from his desire to be "special". The idea of being "ordinary" was appalling to him - even his name being common was something that irritated him. He needed to believe that he was extraordinary. He didn't know that he was a wizard or that the things he could do were magic, but he realized early on that he could do things that the other children could not. That made him "special" and he liked that. Where Harry was simply confused by such things and wished they wouldn't happen, Riddle set out to make things happen and hone his natural ability because he saw that as making him superior to everyone else. He used his abilities for cruelty because he was a malicious person, but he sought to control them because that added to his personal belief that he was "special" and better than the other children at the orphanage.

Harry thinks about all the weird things that happened to him while he was growing up, but as I said above, he was primarily confused about why they happened before he was told that he was a wizard. Rather than liking the idea of being different or seeing that as making him "special", Harry wished things like that wouldn't happen. He wonders why such things happen around him, but he doesn't quite realize that he's the one doing those things and he never explores the potential of doing them intentionally.

In fact it requires both, but we don't see whether Harry would've been capable on it in terms of raw power because he didn't have the academic knowledge required - that was my point.

Not entirely. The accidental bursts of magic exhibited by most children is an excellent example of that actually. Academic knowledge leads to being able to control the power they have, but it doesn't have any effect on how powerful they are from what we are shown. They are born with a certain amount of power. Studying, training, and experience teaches them to focus and control the power they already have, but it won't create power where none exists and it won't increase the existing amount of power.

Before he discovers that he is a wizard, Harry does a lot of unusual things - but nothing really extraordinary in terms of power. He turns his teacher's hair blue, makes a sweater shrink, makes his own hair grow back, finds himself on the roof - whether he apparated or floated up there is debatable. The way Harry described it, it sounds like he floated up there because he assumes the wind must have caught him as he jumped. But these are all fairly average skills on the whole - spells he would eventually learn in charms for the most part. As he studies and learns the actual spells and theory behind them, he learns to control his power so such things won't happen accidentally, but the amount of power displayed doesn't change.

This is impossible to discern though because we do not know as to how spell invention works. It may be a combination of academics, discipline and power, or it may be a combination of only 2 of those things, or 1, we have no idea.

Academics and control would certainly be factors - the theory behind the spell is necessary - but they would also have to have the power to use the spell as it was intended. Pretty much every spell Lockhart attempts fails - he lacks the power to make them work properly. He knows the spell and knows what it is supposed to do - he's just not powerful enough to do it.

Which again is exactly why I place alot of the previous generation's exceptionality on hyperbole. It's debatable whether they 'stood' out as much when they were actually at school, regardless of whether they did indeed stand out or not, as they do when spoken of in the past tense. History has a tendancy to elevate its exceptions to dizzying heights.

To some extent. However, it is their former teachers who discuss the Marauders' abilities in that context and - for the teachers - James and Sirius stood out as exceptional students. Neither of them studied much, but they were still very powerful and their innate abilities stood out.

In the current generation, I think only the Weasley twins stand out in that regard. Like the Marauders, they did not put much effort into studying or school work in general. But they still manage to make decent grades and demonstrate a lot of power between them.

Yes, power can't be taught but the point of my argument wasn't about power, it was describing the fact that the strength of a spell is based on more than simple power. The technique of the wand movement allows the power you DO have to be channelled better as does the focus of your mind, and these are things that CAN be taught. It's fairly reasonable to assume that an adult and more experienced wizard would be more adept in both things and therefore exuberate a higher level of alleged power.

The technique of the wand movement is part of what makes the spell work. If you don't do the wand movement correctly, then the spell will not work. Same for the pronunciation of the spell. Saying the incantation incorrectly will result in the spell not working - as we see with Ron when they are learning Wingardium Leviosa. But those things don't have any effect on the amount of power behind the spell - that comes from the witch or wizard. Two wizards doing the exact same spell with the exact same incantation and wand movements are not going to display the same amount of power. We see that throughout the series.

Emotional state does appear have some effect on power however. Intense emotions - particularly fear or anger - are shown to increase the amount of power behind a spell. That makes sense because the adrenaline rush in such situations would factor in. I would correlate that to real life examples of people being able to do extraordinary things in life threatening situations that they would not be able to do normally - i.e. a mother finding the strength to lift a car because her child is trapped inside. But even in situations like that there will be variations on the amount of power displayed depending on the individual person.

This is completely interpretive with regards to the context. Yes, I agree all magic-users have varying levels of power but being able to actually identify that raw power from spell use is a more complicated thing than simply seeing how strong the spell is. It's clearly shown in the book that the more focused you are when casting a spell, the more powerful it is, and the more appropriate your wand movement (think the Levitation charm for example) the better the spell is pulled off; right there we've identified an additional two factors in the strength of spells and there may very well be more. Because of that, unless you succeed in eliminating those other confounding factors it's almost impossible to tell how much a powerful spell cast is based on power or technique. It becomes even more blurry when you consider the comparison between adults and children.

I would have to disagree because I don't feel that it is shown in the text that focus and control contribute to the amount of raw power at all. Take Hermione for example - she is very focused and controlled in pretty much everything she does. The technical aspects of her spells are perfect - pronunciation, wand movement, etc... Yet she displays no extraordinary amount of power in comparison to anyone else. She typically learns spells faster in terms of making them do what they're supposed to do, but others demonstrate more power when they catch up. We see that with Wingardium Leviosa as well - Hermione learned the spell more quickly and made her feather float perfectly, but Ron had the power to levitate a club with enough force knock out a mountain troll. He needed Hermione's help to learn how to do the spell correctly, but the amount of power behind it came from him.

We see that with the stunning spell as well. Some cast Stupify and the person just falls over, stunned - a fairly average display of power. Others cast Stupify and the person is lifted into the air and thrown backwards - displaying much more power. They are all doing the correct wand movement and correct pronunciation - some just have more power than others.

I don't agree at all and I think this is a very simplistic extrapolation of the spell casts - as I've mentioned above, we're clearly shown that there are other factors in producing a powerful spell and in many cases I'd expect an adult to be more adept in those factors due to greater experience and practice.

I would still have to disagree because Expelliarmus is a fairly simple spell. Snape and Harry use the same spell - the same wand movement, the same pronunciation. There is no distinction in terms of technique and that spell in particular was one that Harry excelled at. That was a display of raw power that has nothing to do with technique or age. A person's age is not a measure of how powerful they are. Dumbledore and Voldemort both displayed that they were very powerful when they were students. Their ages had very little to do with it - they were born with that power. McGonagall was around the same age as Voldemort, but she did not have the same amount of power - she was very skilled and powerful in her own right, but nowhere near as powerful as Voldemort. Elphias Doge was the same age as Dumbledore - they went to school together - but he was nowhere near as powerful as Dumbledore and never had been by his own admission.

Dumbledore didn't explain that because his description of the event was more abstract than that; because of that I find it highly interpretive regardless of the decision come to from it. He describes Harry's courage winning through and a quality in him that Voldemort did not know of but nothing more or nothing less, and due to that it could be interpreted that his courage actually WON the duel or that his courage ALLOWED him to win the duel ie. he faced Voldemort head on rather than running like most would and this allowed him to win the duel.

In addition, courage, emotions, etc. could in fact be a PART of magical power rather than an exonic factor, and in fact this is hinted at many times in the series.

I found Dumbledore's explanation to be quite clear and concise myself. It wasn't magical power - it was courage and determination. Harry displayed a stronger force of will - not more power. Voldemort was inherently more powerful than Harry in terms of magic. In terms of courage and determination, Harry was inherently more powerful than Voldemort. He didn't use magic to push those beads of light towards Voldemort's wand - he used willpower and determination. In terms of raw power, the only person who was a match for Voldemort was Dumbledore - they were the two most powerful wizards in existence. Harry didn't even come close to that kind of power. Nobody did.

I do agree that the emotional state of a person is a factor though, but I went into that above so I won't repeat myself. :)

Yeah of course, but I think it's higher than his peers: not significantly higher but as the books go on I feel his power begins to grow beyond his peers, like an exponential increase that starts off barely noticible (and behind others in fact) but becomes ever increasing. In fact, even the Sorting Hat in PS states that Harry has talent, and the fact 'talent' is mentioned suggests that it isn't just an ordinary amount of talent; in OotP he also wandlessly casts a spell, something that only two other wizards are shown to be capable of (Dumbledore and Voldemort); in HBP and DH he casts a fair few wordless spells which, while we see more than just Dumbledore and Voldemort accomplish, the only other student we see pulling this off is Hermione.

I disagree. At no point does Harry ever do anything that one or more of his peers cannot do just as well or even better than he can. Harry stands out among his peers because of his capacity for love - not his magical power. The Sorting Hat notes that Harry has talent, but that is not exclusive to Harry - the Hat does not say that Harry has more talent than anyone else, just that he has talent. Harry never cast a spell without his wand intentionally - in OOTP, his hand was right next to his wand. If he had been farther away, saying Lumos would not have worked - which we also see in DH when he is separated from his wand at Bathilda Bagshot's house.

Of course, all wizards are capable of doing magic without a wand - that was not exclusive to any wizard. Jo addressed that issue as well - the wand gives them more control over the spell they cast. But we see several people do magic without a wand over the course of the series. In PS/SS, Quirrell snapped his fingers to tie Harry up and clapped his hands to release the bonds - and that had nothing to do with Voldemort because Voldemort was completely powerless at that point in time. In POA, Tom - the innkeeper at the Leaky Cauldron - snaps his fingers to start the fire. Wandless magic was never used as a sign of power. In fact, I don't recall either Voldemort or Dumbledore ever doing magic without a wand.

In addition, in interviews including Pottercast JK herself has stated that:

1. Up to GoF, Hermione would've beaten every other student in her year in a duel.
2. By GoF, Harry would've given as good as he got against Hermione.
3. By OotP and beyond Harry would've beaten Hermione and the rest of the DA in a duel.

If you add the three statements together it's pretty clear: By OotP Harry would beat every other student in his year in a duel, and that quite explicitly debukes and conflicts with your belief that Harry is on equal terms with his peers. It's arguable how much of this is knowledge or not but that's exactly the point: there are many blurred lines when considering a wizard's combat prowess and apparent 'power'.

I cannot find any quotes from Jo saying those things. Do you have a link or could you post the quotes? The only thing I found was a comment she made that Hermione would have beaten Harry up to about halfway through POA - at which point he instinctively developed a higher level of skill at DADA. She doesn't say anything about the other students in that quote at all - nor does she mention any of the later books.

However, I would agree with that assessment because POA is where Harry begins to display the power that he does have - which also correlates to him gaining more confidence in himself. I don't feel that the amount of power he had increased - he displayed such power in the first two books as well. The difference in POA is that Harry is starting to believe in himself where he had doubts about himself prior to that. Hermione always displayed a higher level of technical ability and she obviously knew more spells, but she was never as powerful as Harry or Ron - just more knowledgable.

So I would have to disagree with your assessment. I don't feel the text demonstrates that Harry would be able to beat every other student in his year. Quite frankly, I don't feel the text demonstrates that Hermione would be able to beat every other student in their year either. I find that highly improbable based on what is shown in the text. If Jo did actually say that, this would be one of those times that I would have to say that her statement does not correlate to what she actually demonstrated in the text. But I cannot find any evidence that she actually did say that - I only found one quote where she answered a question specifically about Harry and Hermione that made no mention of the other students at all.

Another factor there is that the ability to win a duel is not necessarily a measure of power. There are other things to consider. Harry's known for being good at Expelliarmus - if he manages to be just a tad faster in casting the spell to disarm his opponent, then he will most likely win. That's not a measure of his power so much as how quick he is on the draw.

The distinction that I am making is in regards to the raw power behind the spell itself. One wizard casts Expelliarmus and simply disarms his opponent. Another casts the same spell and lifts them off their feet and knocks them backwards - that is a demonstration of a lot more power behind the spell. That power comes from within the wizard - not what they know or how well they are able to perform the technical aspects of the spell. Being more powerful is not a guarantee that they would win in a duel - they could still be disarmed or lose to a technicality like Voldemort did. Likewise, winning a duel is not a sign that a wizard is powerful - sometimes they just get lucky like Harry did against Voldemort.

I read 'having difficulty' with it to suggest that most can produce the misty version of it but not a corporeal version of it; that may very well be conjectural interpretation but unfortunately, since the text is ambigious, either conclusion you may is going to be highly interpretive.

Hermione has difficulty with the spell, but she is able to produce a corporeal patronus. The difficulty she has is in maintaining the patronus in the face of a dementor. Everyone in the Order was capable of producing a corporeal patronus - that was how they communicated with each other. Whether they were able to maintain that in the face of a dementor is unknown because we don't see all of them face dementors. I don't feel the text is ambiguous about that at all. Having difficulty with a spell does not mean a person cannot do the spell. There were a lot of spells that Harry had difficulty with as well - he could do them, but not as well as other spells.

How do you define average skills and power though, who can you possibly compare them to? The only time we see them, as a group without others, engage in magical combat is against Death Eaters, fully-fledged dark wizards of above ordinary power and none of them die.

This is the problem - it's impossible to explicitly define their power or skill because there is no benchmark to hold them against.

None of them died that night because the Order showed up to save them. I do agree that the six of them did very well considering that they were facing fully trained, adults who would have killed them without compunction. But - with the exception of Harry - they would most likely have been killed that night if the Order had not shown up. Harry is the only exception because Voldemort wanted to kill Harry himself and had ordered the Death Eaters not to kill him.

However, we do see them practicing as a group within the DA and we see that their skills are fairly equal overall. The majority of the DA has no trouble in producing a corporeal patronus - indeed, some of them learn the patronus charm more quickly than Harry did and it comes down to three of the DA coming to Harry's rescue with their patronuses in DH. Harry also notes various duels going on in DH as he was making his way to Voldemort in the Great Hall - the students he knew from the DA in particular. And they were all doing very well. In terms of what we are shown on page, they were all fairly average in terms of their power - we don't see any of them perform any magic that is more powerful or more extraordinary than anyone else. That goes for Harry as well. We never see Harry do any kind of magic that anyone else cannot do to the same level or better than he does. Harry never stood out among his peers in terms of magical power.

What I liked about the DA was that, while Harry was the one they chose to be the leader and he was in charge of the sessions, he was not actually a teacher. The DA was a group effort and they taught each other and practiced together. Harry had a slight advantage initially because he had learned extra defensive spells for the tournament the previous year, but his knowledge was nowhere near complete and it still came down to them learning knew spells together in preparation for their OWLs as well as teaching themselves how to defend themselves in a fight. But the primary focus was on what they would need to know in order to pass their OWLs - the things that Umbridge was supposed to be teaching them in class, but did not. The DA was - as Hermione planned - a study group for DADA focusing on the practical application because they were not allowed to practice in class.

It's also technique and wand, Neville is using a wand not intended for him and his technique is poor - again, the wand movement of the Levitation charm is a perfect example of technique influencing the 'power' of a spell.

Technique and wand movement are not going to have any effect on the amount of power behind a spell - that comes from within the wizard. Those things are significant to whether or not the spell works - not how powerful the wizard casting the spell is. Neville doing the wand movement incorrectly or pronouncing the incantation wrong - as we see in OOTP when his nose was broken - will result in the spell not working. He couldn't stun anyone at the Ministry because he was unable to say Stupify - the spell wouldn't work at all by saying "stubify".

Neville was using his father's wand, but we cannot say the wand did not choose him after his father was incapacitated. That might have been a factor in the difficulties Neville had, but we have no confirmation on that. I don't think that it did myself because Neville's improvement occurs prior to him getting a new wand - not after. Neville improved by leaps and bounds during the DA sessions in OOTP before they went to the Ministry. As his confidence in himself grew, he was better able to use the power he was born with. Like Ron, Neville's problem was primarily that he did not believe in himself.

The text is ambigious (as seems to be the case alot >.<) but even in its ambigious form it shows that fully-fledged wizards have trouble with a spell that Harry, at 13 years of age, does not. In addition, again using the Order as an example of comparison isn't the best because they're not ordinary wizards at all, not by any stretch.

I don't find the text ambiguous at all. Some people have difficulty with the patronus charm, but some do not. The Order is comprised of ordinary witches and wizards overall - they were for the most part regular people fighting back. Dumbledore and Voldemort were the two most powerful wizards of the age. Nobody else stood out like that.

Harry being taught the charm when he was 13 does not demonstrate that he is more powerful than anyone else because no one else in his year was given that same opportunity. That doesn't demonstrate that Harry is powerful - it only shows that he was given an opportunity that others were not. If Lupin had tried to teach that spell to the entire third year DADA class and Harry was the only one who could do it, then you would have an argument that he was more powerful. But without anyone else in his year being given the same opportunity to learn the spell, the patronus charm cannot be used to measure Harry's power.

Yes, I agree it was a common theme but where I disagree is that it was the ONLY theme ^^.

I never said it was the only theme. I don't know what your point is there. There are a lot of themes within the HP stories - the power of love, the significance of choice, the adults underestimating what kids were capable of, the negativity of prejudice, political corruption - I don't see where that has anything to do with the text not giving any demonstration of Harry being more powerful than anyone else. :huh:

I would agree on Mundungus and Pettigrew, and I would not agree nor disagree on Diggle or Jones because we don't see enough of them to judge, however many of the other examples are from talented wizards and witches; again, talented doesn't need to be omnipotent but simply having an above average affinity, even an average citizen or a stay-at-home-Mum can be above average and Molly suggests this by killing Bellatrix herself.

By what comparison? I would agree that Molly is fairly powerful, but I would not say that she was super powerful by any means. No one in the Order was shown to be super powerful or very much above average, IMO. They were all regular people fighting back against Voldemort - they had a cause they believed in and they stood up for it. Whatever their jobs were is irrelevant, IMO. Like Harry, they had grit and determination - they were willing to fight to the death because they believed in what they were fighting for. They cared about each other and would stand by each other to the end. That was the advantage the Order had over the Death Eaters - unity, trust, caring about each other. The Death Eaters were a disjointed group who would stab each other in the back without blinking an eye if they saw a chance to get ahead or wanted to avoid punishment from Voldemort.

The text mostly depicts the use of it from wizards who aren't performing ordinary roles and are not in ordinary situations however.

Actually, the Order using the patronus charm for a very ordinary purpose - to communicate with each other. That wasn't the purpose of the charm - it was a modification made by Dumbledore to give them a secure means of communication. The actual purpose of the patronus charm was not ordinary by any stretch of the imagination and would not typically be used in ordinary circumstances because it was primarily a defense against dementors.

Using the patronus as a means of communication could occur for something fairly ordinary - such as Arthur using it to let Molly know the Ministry was coming home with him - or in dire circumstances - such as Kingsley using it to warn them that the Ministry had falling and the Death Eaters were coming. The difficulty in the patronus charm was not in casting the charm itself - as we see with the DA and the Order, casting a coporeal patronus actually was not difficult at all. What was difficult was casting a corporeal patronus and maintaining it when facing a dementor - which was the actual purpose of the charm. That was difficult because the charm required the caster to remain focused on a happy thought or memory and the effect of the dementors was to cause despair.

He was of age, that's not the same thing as being an adult: he was 17 years old, that's not an adult, not by a long stretch and certainly not when it comes to technique and training which has no real limitation and will only grow as with your years.

Technique and training have no discernible effect on how powerful a person is though - not from what we're shown in the text. That is something they are born with and never changes. Lockhart also knew the correct technique and had training, but he was not powerful enough to make spells work properly. He was bested by two 12 year old boys.

Dumbledore was depicted as being as powerful at the age of 17 as he was at the age of 115. The examiners talk about how powerful he was at the age of 15 when he took his OWL exams. Dumbledore stood out among his peers both academically as well as with the amount of power he had. His power wasn't determined by how much knowledge he acquired - it was simply part of who he was. He was born with that power. What Dumbledore gained with age was not more power - he gained the knowledge of how to use the power he was born with wisely.

I agree but the main point of my argument here was to show that there are so many factors in discerning the power of a spell that it's very hard to explicitly define the power of the wizard; in order to do so you'd need to somehow tear it away from technique, focus, their wand etc. and then there's the factor he's an adult aswell...a well learned adult at that.

Those factors don't discern the actual power of a spell though. Technique in terms of wand movement and proper pronunciation of the incantation only go towards whether or not the spell will work at all - not how powerful it is. Hermione has perfect technique and pronunciation, but she's not a very powerful witch. Focus and control go towards how well the spell works and things like hitting what you're aiming the spell at - i.e. Neville sending Professor Flitwick flying across the room instead of the cushions they were supposed to be working with. Focus and control are also necessary to prevent accidental bursts of uncontrolled magic.

The power behind the spell comes from within and that is not something that can be taught or increased by a wand movement or incantation - it's part of who they are. There are factors that effect that - confidence, emotional state, etc... - but even there you're going to have variation. Lockhart was very confident in himself - outwardly - but he was not a powerful wizard no matter how much he wanted to be or tried. Fear didn't lead him to do something extraordinary - he collapsed under it. Ron lacked confidence in himself, but often rose to the occasion in spite of that - i.e. knocking out the troll in PS/SS.

We see them exhibit that but when one of them is over 70 years old and the other over 100 :lol: - 70 and 100 years, respectively, of magical development, training, study etc. using immensely powerful spells that even if Harry were capable of using he would not use within the books because he simply doesn't know them.

And both of them exhibited that they were powerful as students as well - they were known for it. Their reputations were not built upon their achievements at the ages of 70 and 115 - but what they did when they were younger. On the contrary, Dumbledore grows weaker as he gets older - not more powerful. That was something Jo emphasized across OOTP and HBP - Dumbledore was growing old and weakening. He wasn't as powerful at the age of 115 as he was at the age of 17.

Yes I know, I was purely describing the 'hero's journey' which is the path that Harry Potter takes; it's a common 'layout' of an epic that's come all the way from Greek tales, and it describes a hero that is victorous through things other than his power (Darth Vader in SW is a perfect example). My point here is that it does not approve or disapprove the power of the hero though, it simply makes it a relatively obselete factor in the story.

In some tales that is a significant factor though. Darth Vader would be a good example of that - he was the most powerful of the Jedi Knights and that's why the Emperor wanted him to turn to the Dark Side. The overall plot arc was built around the concept that Anakin was this super powerful being. From what his mother said, he didn't even have a father - the force created him.

That's the difference with Harry's journey. Where Anakin had to deal with the truth of his power and gain the wisdom on how to handle that power, Harry has to deal with people perceiving him to be something that he is not. People believe that he is this super powerful being who destroyed Voldemort as a baby, but the reality was that he didn't do anything - his mother did. People think the prophecy means that Harry is the only one powerful enough to defeat Voldemort - the reality was that the prophecy was saying that Harry would have to die so Voldemort could be defeated. Harry's journey was never about being or becoming a powerful being - it was about accepting his own mortality and death. Harry's "power" was not magical at all - it was simply that he was willing to sacrifice himself to save others. Harry stands out because of his capacity for love - not his magical ability.

There's a fine line here where we differ in opinion: I agree that he does not gain his ending victories in any of those books due to magical power but I disagree that he does not exhibit considerable magical power and skill WITHIN those books. Again, even the Sorting Hat takes it upon itself to point out he has talent.

The Sorting Hat said he had talent - not more talent than anyone else. There were plenty of others who had talent as well. And Harry never displayed any more talent or skill than anyone else. In some cases, he displayed less talent and skill. The one area where he was exceptional and stood out among his peers was at Quidditch - he was a natural born flyer and had exceptional skills as a seeker.

In terms of his power and magical ability, the only thing that Harry ever did that could be perceived as exceptional was the patronus charm - but even that was shown to be something that many of his peers could do as well. It was only perceived to be exceptional in POA because the adults didn't give the kids enough credit for what they were capable of. As far as we are shown in the text, Harry never exhibits considerable magical skill or power. He has power, but it is shown to be equal to his peers - not greater. Where Harry really stands out is in his capacity to love - his courage, determination, and the strength of his will.

I think we'll definitely have to agree to disagree here: my view of the Aurors is completely different from yours; policeman lack one variable that Aurors have that can affect their effectiveness at catching criminals and that is magical power. Because of that very variable, Aurors have something extra affect how good they are and I don't think it's fair to completely remove it nor do I think the comparison is fair. I know what you mean by the comparison but I think the inclusion of magical power is an important one: if one Auror is more powerful than another then that will affect how good they are yet it's not like one policeman can be more powerful than another (except physically of course, of which has very little effect if you consider gun fighting) because there's no variable there to affect such a thing.

I was making a correlation - not a comparison. Aurors are law enforcement - nothing more and nothing less. They are one aspect of the Department of Magical Law. And they are only one subset of that department. There are also Hit Wizards and other departments specializing in various aspects of wizarding laws. Magical creatures, experimental charms, the misuse of muggle artifacts - all of those were departments dealing with enforcing the laws of the wizarding world. Aurors were only part of that. They specialize in catching Dark Wizards.

The type of work an Auror does is not going to be all that different than a policemen in terms of the investigative process. Sure they use magic - but so do the criminals they are trying to catch. In that respect, the ability to do magic is not a distinction because it exists on both sides of the coin - a point Jo emphasized in HBP by having Fudge and Scrimgeour meet with the muggle Prime Minister. The fact that they could do magic didn't make things any easier for them because the other side could do magic as well.

That applies to Harry as well. His fame is a significant factor there - he is The Boy Who Lived, The Chosen One, and The Man Who Defeated Voldemort. His being an Auror and moving up to the head of the department is as much publicity for the Ministry as it is a testament to what he achieved. The wizarding world as a whole would prefer that Harry Potter be an Auror and be in charge because of his reputation. Dumbledore faced a similar issue with people wanting him to be Minister of Magic - and I'd say it's likely he was also asked to be an Auror with his defeat of Grindelwald. The difference with Harry is that he wanted to be an Auror - and I think he demonstrated the necessary skills to be good at it over the course of the series. But being a good Auror is not going to come down to who is the most powerful. It's going to come down to exactly what Harry did throughout the series as a whole - investigation, research, gathering evidence, putting the pieces of the puzzle together and figuring out the right answer. That is going to be the bulk of Harry's job. He's not going to be dueling Dark Wizards on a daily basis any more than Kingsley or Tonks did.

And on the topic of Tonks: she was clumsy, not necessarily the same thing as weak.

I didn't say she was weak. I said she was not a super powerful witch. I'd say she was fairly average in terms of her magical skill, but her being a metamorphmagus would bring her overall skills slightly above average because - as she told Harry in OOTP - she excelled at disguising herself.

Even at the end of the books I don't deem him close to being an adult; in all honesty the vast majority of people do not fully mature, either physically, mentally (and thus IMO, magically), hormonally or in terms of experience until they're out of their teens; 17 years old is not an adult age. Even if he were a legend in waiting (not that I necessarily think he is) he wouldn't defeat Voldemort at 17 years old in terms of raw power and skill, it really doesn't matter, because his foe would be among the most skillful and powerful ADULT wizards ever conceived.

Think of it as simply as this: Level 17 Super Wizard vs. Level 71 Super Wizard - 71 wins! :lol: ; obviously simplistic but gets my point across. So of course he'd need to win on a technicality otherwise it would be utterly farcicle.

Especially mentally and experience-wise I don't consider him near an adult: he still exhibits child-like toughtless reactions that adults do not (like vengeful Crucio because of McGonagall being spat on), he still has a strong and child-like lure to the Hallows at one point envisioning himself kicking Voldemort's *** with them (very kid-like imagination), he lacks mental discipline and stability that comes with age, he's only lived 17 years and only 6 of which were magical and he's still in adolescence for crying out loud!

Harry is not an adult at the end of DH, no way IMO. In some ways he's very mature but that doesn't make him an adult.

At the age of 17, Harry had already been through a lot more than most 17 year old boys had. He was the target of the most powerful Dark Wizard from the time he was born. His parents were killed because that Dark Wizard wanted to kill him. He was abused and neglected for the majority of his childhood because Dumbledore chose a strong magical protection over Harry's happiness and emotional well being. Every year of his education at Hogwarts was marred by a traumatic event threatening his life - which forced him to learn more than he would have under normal circumstances. At the age of 17, Harry had already faced more than most of the Aurors because he was a target from birth. He had more experience in such matters than Kingsley - and certainly Tonks. Harry was mature beyond his years because his childhood was far from normal. Harry was an adult at the end of HBP - he just had to wait until it was legal in DH to actually be considered one.

Harry's use of an unforgivable in response to McGonagall being spat on is not admirable, but it's not a childish response either. They were at war and Harry had been pushed to the limits. And he was still corrupted by a piece of Voldemort's soul when he did that. Still, McGonagall was not above using an Unforgivable herself - she used Imperio to make Amycus and Alecto tie themselves up.

I agree that Voldemort was more powerful than Harry, but not because he was 70 years old. Voldemort was more powerful at the age of 17 than Harry was at the age of 17 - the same as Dumbledore was. They grew weaker as they got older - not more powerful. But even as they were growing weaker because of age, they were still more powerful than Harry because they were more powerful to begin with. Harry wouldn't have been a match for 17 year old Tom Riddle any more than he was a match for 70 year old Voldemort.

In terms of knowledge and experience, I would agree that Voldemort had that advantage over Harry as well - though I hold that completely separate from his magical power. However, Voldemort did not draw upon his vast amount of knowledge and Harry was aware of that. Voldemort relied upon the same spells for the most part - Crucio to punish and Avada Kedavra to kill. Occasionally he used Nagini to kill. But for all the Dark Arts he knew, he really did not use them. The only time we really see him pulling out the fireworks was when he dueled with Dumbledore - the only wizard who was ever powerful enough to defeat him in a fair duel based on magical skill. That was why Harry had to win on a technicality - nobody but Dumbledore would have been able to defeat Voldemort in a duel based on magical skill.

Regardless, I think we'll need to agree to disagree here ^^. IMO many of the keypoints in our arguments are very, VERY ambigious in the books and highly prone to interpretation. Much of the definitions of magical power are relative - they shift with the time, the stakes, the emotions of the wizard etc. and are also affected by technique and mental focus; there's so many elements and variables to take into account, so much moving in the story that you only get an overall 'taste' of someone's magical power and that view or opinion can vastly change from person to person on the cumulative basis of small things. In all truth I can see us arguing here til dawn and still not coming to a proper conclusion because there is nothing to specifically recite that approves of disapproves either of us IMO; and in fact, I think that's how JK intended it: that it be heavily open to interpretation how powerful Harry really is.

I don't find the text ambiguous at all. I think Jo spelled out it out very clearly and did a very good job in showing the difference between the power and abilities that people are born with and what it is possible to acquire through experience and knowledge. Experience and knowledge won't make someone more powerful magically - Hermione can study and practice for the rest of her life and she will still never be as powerful as Dumbledore was. She might acquire the same amount of knowledge by the time she is 115, but that won't increase the amount of power she was born with. The same would apply to Harry - though I doubt he would even try to acquire that kind of knowledge because he was not as interested in academics.

Harry's story is unique because he had no extraordinary magical power or abilities, IMO. That is what makes him such an intriguing hero. He was not super powerful by any stretch of the imagination, but he was always able to rise to the challenge and succeed when faced with extraordinary circumstances. He did that through his courage, determination, strength of will, and his amazing capacity for love. That's what makes Harry Potter stand out among other stories in the fantasy genre. He wasn't the typical hero. He wasn't exceptionally well built or muscular. He wasn't the best looking guy around. He wasn't the most powerful or the most skilled. He has weaknesses, flaws, and vulnerabilities that other heroes do not have - he even wears glasses. He was simply an ordinary boy forced into extraordinary circumstances and rose to the challenge. That's what grabbed me about the story from the start and why I still enjoy it today.

I agree. Another significant point on that is the fact that Jo chose to have Dumbledore emphasize that in HBP in his discussions with Harry. Destroying all of the Horcruxes would make Voldemort "mortal" in that he would no longer have anything tethering him to life and could be killed. But Dumbledore makes a point to emphasize to Harry that Voldemort would still be a very powerful wizard and difficult to defeat even without his Horcruxes. In terms of power, magical skill, and just general knowledge about magic, Harry was never a match for Voldemort and Dumbledore was fully aware of that. If it came down to a fair duel without either of them having an advantage due to some technicality, then Voldemort would most likely win because he was a lot more powerful than Harry in addition to having a lot more experience and knowledge overall. Where Harry had the advantage over Voldemort was in his capacity for love and the strength of his determination. He acts on faith that the Elder wand will come to him and his faith is rewarded.

I agree. In addition, Voldemort had tons more experience as a wizard - he was like 60 years old or so right? So that combined with his being a great wizard to begin with, I feel would have placed him leaps and bounds above Harry in a straight forward duel, if Harry had no other advantage. One consideration I had was that Harry never knew how or when "love" would come into play and assiste him, imo. It would just happen in ways he didn't plan (like thinking of family and friends when possessed, etc.) and so I agree that it took a lot of faith on his part to trust that 'love' would come through in the end against the powerful Voldemort, even without the horcruxes.

I felt that the Elder Wand remained true to Harry after Voldemort AK'd him on a couple of accounts. First, because they were both kind of defeated by that spell, Voldemort passed out and I am unsure if the spell rebounded or what, but something took him down in addition to taking Harry down. Second, the blood they shared brought them both back, if I am not mistaken - but that is where it gets a little confusing because there is also the sacrifice issue - Dumbledore appeared to suggest that if it hadn't been a sacrifice, Harry wouldn't have the choice to return. So I am not sure what role the blood/sacrifice played in it. Nonetheless, both factors were associated with love - so to me, either being the reason the Wand remained true after Voldemort used it to cast the downing spell, love had something to do with it, imo. So I think that was the 'love' factor involved with his retaining the 'special weapon' if that was the Elder Wand, but it could be that the special weapon was supposed to be love. :lol:.

In any case, I think Harry's love and compassion was a major factor in his defeat of, and overcoming Voldemort in his last two confrontations - and actually, it was involved in his other confrontations with the dark lord as well, imo. I believe that it remained a major factor throughout - in line with what Dumbeldore had told Harry, as you pointed out.

I agree. In addition, Voldemort had tons more experience as a wizard - he was like 60 years old or so right? So that combined with his being a great wizard to begin with, I feel would have placed him leaps and bounds above Harry in a straight forward duel, if Harry had no other advantage. One consideration I had was that Harry never knew how or when "love" would come into play and assiste him, imo. It would just happen in ways he didn't plan (like thinking of family and friends when possessed, etc.) and so I agree that it took a lot of faith on his part to trust that 'love' would come through in the end against the powerful Voldemort, even without the horcruxes.

I felt that the Elder Wand remained true to Harry after Voldemort AK'd him on a couple of accounts. First, because they were both kind of defeated by that spell, Voldemort passed out and I am unsure if the spell rebounded or what, but something took him down in addition to taking Harry down. Second, the blood they shared brought them both back, if I am not mistaken - but that is where it gets a little confusing because there is also the sacrifice issue - Dumbledore appeared to suggest that if it hadn't been a sacrifice, Harry wouldn't have the choice to return. So I am not sure what role the blood/sacrifice played in it. Nonetheless, both factors were associated with love - so to me, either being the reason the Wand remained true after Voldemort used it to cast the downing spell, love had something to do with it, imo. So I think that was the 'love' factor involved with his retaining the 'special weapon' if that was the Elder Wand, but it could be that the special weapon was supposed to be love. :lol:.

In any case, I think Harry's love and compassion was a major factor in his defeat of, and overcoming Voldemort in his last two confrontations - and actually, it was involved in his other confrontations with the dark lord as well, imo. I believe that it remained a major factor throughout - in line with what Dumbeldore had told Harry, as you pointed out.

Well, Voldemort didn't actually defeat Harry when he killed him. Harry did the same thing Dumbledore tried to do by asking Snape to kill him - by allowing Voldemort to kill him without trying to stop him or defend himself in any way, he was giving Voldemort permission to kill him. In that regard, Harry succeeded where Dumbledore failed - he "died" undefeated.

I don't think it was necessary for Harry to sacrifice himself in order to have the choice to return. The way Dumbledore explained it, it didn't really matter how Harry died - as long as Voldemort was still alive, he would tether Harry to life. In taking Harry's blood, Voldemort made himself into something like a Horcrux for Harry - only it was based in the good magic from Lily's sacrifice rather than the dark magic used to create an actual Horcrux. That was the irony of the prophecy - and I think that's what Dumbledore realized when he discovered that Voldemort had taken Harry's blood. As long as Harry was alive, Voldemort could not be killed and, as long as Voldemort was alive, Harry could not be killed. The prophecy revealed how it would go down - though in a very roundabout, confusing manner.

I think Dumbledore was attempting to set up a scenario similar to Lily's sacrifice to break Voldemort's power on a bigger scale. Lily's sacrifice broke Voldemort's power in regards to Harry - he couldn't touch him or cast spells against him and that was what led to his downfall. Knowing that Voldemort had used Harry's blood made Dumbledore reasonably certain that Harry would have a chance to survive. And, knowing Harry, he believed Harry would sacrifice himself to save everyone else in a similar manner to how his mother sacrificed herself to save him. If Harry did that, then - as Dumbledore told Snape - it would truly be the end of Voldemort because his power would be broken. He would not be master of the Elder wand and everyone fighting against him would be protected in a similar manner to how Harry was protected - breaking Voldemort's power completely. I think you and I are in agreement in our disapproval of how Dumbledore carried that plan out, but the end result was what he predicted - though the part involving the Elder wand didn't go down exactly as he planned. Still, it did work in the end - Voldemort could not master the Elder wand and Harry's sacrifice was the end of Voldemort because it broke his power.

But that was an act of faith for Harry at that time - he had figured all of that out, but he had no way to be sure if he was right. He put his faith in Dumbledore and met his death willingly with the hope of saving others - his immense capacity for love and compassion for others gave him the strength to do that. And he continues to do that after he returns - putting faith in himself that he was right about being the true master of the Elder wand.

I think we're in agreement for the most part. :)

Well, Voldemort didn't actually defeat Harry when he killed him. Harry did the same thing Dumbledore tried to do by asking Snape to kill him - by allowing Voldemort to kill him without trying to stop him or defend himself in any way, he was giving Voldemort permission to kill him. In that regard, Harry succeeded where Dumbledore failed - he "died" undefeated.

I don't think it was necessary for Harry to sacrifice himself in order to have the choice to return. The way Dumbledore explained it, it didn't really matter how Harry died - as long as Voldemort was still alive, he would tether Harry to life. In taking Harry's blood, Voldemort made himself into something like a Horcrux for Harry - only it was based in the good magic from Lily's sacrifice rather than the dark magic used to create an actual Horcrux. That was the irony of the prophecy - and I think that's what Dumbledore realized when he discovered that Voldemort had taken Harry's blood. As long as Harry was alive, Voldemort could not be killed and, as long as Voldemort was alive, Harry could not be killed. The prophecy revealed how it would go down - though in a very roundabout, confusing manner.

I think Dumbledore was attempting to set up a scenario similar to Lily's sacrifice to break Voldemort's power on a bigger scale. Lily's sacrifice broke Voldemort's power in regards to Harry - he couldn't touch him or cast spells against him and that was what led to his downfall. Knowing that Voldemort had used Harry's blood made Dumbledore reasonably certain that Harry would have a chance to survive. And, knowing Harry, he believed Harry would sacrifice himself to save everyone else in a similar manner to how his mother sacrificed herself to save him. If Harry did that, then - as Dumbledore told Snape - it would truly be the end of Voldemort because his power would be broken. He would not be master of the Elder wand and everyone fighting against him would be protected in a similar manner to how Harry was protected - breaking Voldemort's power completely. I think you and I are in agreement in our disapproval of how Dumbledore carried that plan out, but the end result was what he predicted - though the part involving the Elder wand didn't go down exactly as he planned. Still, it did work in the end - Voldemort could not master the Elder wand and Harry's sacrifice was the end of Voldemort because it broke his power.

But that was an act of faith for Harry at that time - he had figured all of that out, but he had no way to be sure if he was right. He put his faith in Dumbledore and met his death willingly with the hope of saving others - his immense capacity for love and compassion for others gave him the strength to do that. And he continues to do that after he returns - putting faith in himself that he was right about being the true master of the Elder wand.

I think we're in agreement for the most part. :)

Actually completely in agreement. I wasn't sure about how the blood/sacrifice factored in, but what you have said makes sense. The part I am left not understanding is how Dumbledore would know (and why it happened) that Harry's death would grant protection to many. What it just translative that way? Lily died protecting Harry only and so the magic just worked on him - but because Harry was making Voldemort vulnerable in general and that would help lots of people, lots were protected? And if it was the old magic - didn't Voldemort actually have to offer him a bonafide chance to live? Because all he offered him was time off for good behavior, indicating that he could run, but Voldy would hunt him down and kill everyone in his path looking for him while he did so - with the continued goal of killing him, iirc. So that part of it was still confusing to me. Did you work that part out?

Nonetheless, the rest seems right in the way you have explained it - I hadn't considered Dumbledore to still be considering the dual blood aspect - but you are right, he does mention that too. In any case, I agree with that take and also that Harry's character was fitting for making the decisions that would turn out to be the correct ones to be made in the circumstances. I felt he was always trusting and showed a lot of compassion, so it makes sense those attributes would shine when needed at the end, imo.

Actually completely in agreement. I wasn't sure about how the blood/sacrifice factored in, but what you have said makes sense. The part I am left not understanding is how Dumbledore would know (and why it happened) that Harry's death would grant protection to many. What it just translative that way? Lily died protecting Harry only and so the magic just worked on him - but because Harry was making Voldemort vulnerable in general and that would help lots of people, lots were protected? And if it was the old magic - didn't Voldemort actually have to offer him a bonafide chance to live? Because all he offered him was time off for good behavior, indicating that he could run, but Voldy would hunt him down and kill everyone in his path looking for him while he did so - with the continued goal of killing him, iirc. So that part of it was still confusing to me. Did you work that part out?

The way I understood it, the significance of both sacrifices was that Voldemort gave both Lily and Harry a choice. I like the irony of that because, in both cases, Voldemort played a role in his own downfall by offering them a choice. He gave Lily the choice of saving herself and letting her son die or dying with him - or for him as it turned out. He gave Harry the choice to save others by giving himself up or saving himself and letting them die - promising to end the fighting if Harry came to him willingly. By giving each of them a choice, Voldemort also gave them the means to use their sacrifice to protect the people they were sacrificing themselves for. Lily's focus was on saving Harry. Harry's focus was on saving everyone who was fighting against Voldemort.

Nonetheless, the rest seems right in the way you have explained it - I hadn't considered Dumbledore to still be considering the dual blood aspect - but you are right, he does mention that too. In any case, I agree with that take and also that Harry's character was fitting for making the decisions that would turn out to be the correct ones to be made in the circumstances. I felt he was always trusting and showed a lot of compassion, so it makes sense those attributes would shine when needed at the end, imo.

Completely agree. :agree:

The way I understood it, the significance of both sacrifices was that Voldemort gave both Lily and Harry a choice. I like the irony of that because, in both cases, Voldemort played a role in his own downfall by offering them a choice. He gave Lily the choice of saving herself and letting her son die or dying with him - or for him as it turned out. He gave Harry the choice to save others by giving himself up or saving himself and letting them die - promising to end the fighting if Harry came to him willingly. By giving each of them a choice, Voldemort also gave them the means to use their sacrifice to protect the people they were sacrificing themselves for. Lily's focus was on saving Harry. Harry's focus was on saving everyone who was fighting against Voldemort.

So you mean any choice? It didn't have to be the specific choice to live or die? I had thought that was part of the deal with the old magic when Lily died - that he offered her a chance to live and she refused. But if it was a matter of just any type of choice, that would make more sense. Because another distinction was that Lily was standing before Voldemort and so death was imminent and Harry wasn't, he'd have to go to him before death might be imminent. Maybe the differing terms allowed for a differing outcome in protection - not just the fact that Harry didn't die for just one person, but also because the actual terms and conditions of the choice he got were slightly distinct. But there was a choice for Harry - as you said, run or meet - but I still didn't feel like the run included saving himself because Voldy said he was still going to hunt him down and kill him. So it was more like a reprieve, rather than death on the half hour, no? But in any case, it still amounted to a choice; death now or death later, so if all that was required was a choice, then that works.

So you mean any choice? It didn't have to be the specific choice to live or die? I had thought that was part of the deal with the old magic when Lily died - that he offered her a chance to live and she refused. But if it was a matter of just any type of choice, that would make more sense. Because another distinction was that Lily was standing before Voldemort and so death was imminent and Harry wasn't, he'd have to go to him before death might be imminent. Maybe the differing terms allowed for a differing outcome in protection - not just the fact that Harry didn't die for just one person, but also because the actual terms and conditions of the choice he got were slightly distinct. But there was a choice for Harry - as you said, run or meet - but I still didn't feel like the run included saving himself because Voldy said he was still going to hunt him down and kill him. So it was more like a reprieve, rather than death on the half hour, no? But in any case, it still amounted to a choice; death now or death later, so if all that was required was a choice, then that works.

I mean the specific choices that he gave them. The choice he gave Lily was more simplistic - step aside and live or stand there and die. Harry's was a bit more complex. Voldemort made the offer to stop the fighting if Harry came to him, which would save everyone who was fighting from being killed that night. Harry could have saved himself that night and let others continue fighting and very likely killed by running away - but it was not in his nature to do such a thing and Voldemort understood that. That's why he was so sure Harry would come to him. What he didn't realize was that, by giving Harry that option, he enabled Harry to give everyone fighting a similar protection to what Lily gave him because Harry chose to go to Voldemort in order to save them that night.

That was limited to the battle at hand - if Voldemort kept his word and ended the battle when Harry came to him, that wouldn't be the end of it because there would be other battles. Harry understood that even if Voldemort did not - it appeared that he felt killing Harry would end the rebellion against him in that it would prove his own superiority in being the most powerful as well as taking away their hero. What Voldemort didn't understand - like most villains - that was more likely to spur the rebellion forward instead of stopping it. Which is exactly what we saw when they all believed Harry was dead - they continued to fight anyway. And that is also true for Lily. Even if she had allowed Voldemort to kill Harry and he let her live that night, that would not guarantee that he wouldn't decide to kill her at some other time.

So those were basically "one time offers" for that night only - but that was enough to allow them to invoke the ancient magic that put the protection in place because they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to try and save others. Lily's protection was limited to Harry because she was focused on trying to save him in that moment. Harry's protection was broader because he was focused on trying to save everyone who was fighting in that battle - he didn't want anyone else to die because they were protecting him.

That was my understanding of it.

So those were basically "one time offers" for that night only - but that was enough to allow them to invoke the ancient magic that put the protection in place because they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to try and save others. Lily's protection was limited to Harry because she was focused on trying to save him in that moment. Harry's protection was broader because he was focused on trying to save everyone who was fighting in that battle - he didn't want anyone else to die because they were protecting him.

That was my understanding of it.

I thought Harry let Voldemort kill him because it was the only way to destroy the bit of Voldy's soul that was inside Harry.

I mean the specific choices that he gave them. The choice he gave Lily was more simplistic - step aside and live or stand there and die. Harry's was a bit more complex. Voldemort made the offer to stop the fighting if Harry came to him, which would save everyone who was fighting from being killed that night. Harry could have saved himself that night and let others continue fighting and very likely killed by running away - but it was not in his nature to do such a thing and Voldemort understood that. That's why he was so sure Harry would come to him. What he didn't realize was that, by giving Harry that option, he enabled Harry to give everyone fighting a similar protection to what Lily gave him because Harry chose to go to Voldemort in order to save them that night.

That was limited to the battle at hand - if Voldemort kept his word and ended the battle when Harry came to him, that wouldn't be the end of it because there would be other battles. Harry understood that even if Voldemort did not - it appeared that he felt killing Harry would end the rebellion against him in that it would prove his own superiority in being the most powerful as well as taking away their hero. What Voldemort didn't understand - like most villains - that was more likely to spur the rebellion forward instead of stopping it. Which is exactly what we saw when they all believed Harry was dead - they continued to fight anyway. And that is also true for Lily. Even if she had allowed Voldemort to kill Harry and he let her live that night, that would not guarantee that he wouldn't decide to kill her at some other time.

So those were basically "one time offers" for that night only - but that was enough to allow them to invoke the ancient magic that put the protection in place because they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to try and save others. Lily's protection was limited to Harry because she was focused on trying to save him in that moment. Harry's protection was broader because he was focused on trying to save everyone who was fighting in that battle - he didn't want anyone else to die because they were protecting him.

That was my understanding of it.

Agreed, that is what I was trying to say as well. Harry's intent and Lily's intent were different (save many v. save one) and so that is where the protection went. And it wouldn't matter what the offer was that Voldemort gave, just so that one of the choices allowed for a sacrifice. That brings up the other issue because Lily put the barrier against the door of the bedroom to keep Voldemort out, whereas Harry marched right up to him handing himself over for sacrifice (which of course Lily would not because she wanted to protect her son). The dad stood like a barrier in sacrifice to give her time, but that wasn't like Harry either because although Harry stood before Voldemort to be killed in that manner, he was not serving as a barrier for anything, imo. So Harry's deal was a bit different in that regard also. Plus as you mentioned, he didn't have to be there at all that night - he could have run out of the country and dealt with it all later. But if I understand correctly, none of these factors mattered - it was merely the idea that he was granted an opportunity to sacrifice himself, or not, at that time, and had the character to do so willingly which enabled the magic, right? And in Lily's case all of the stuff she said and did didn't matter either, only that she had the opportunity to sacrifice herself or not, at that time, and also had the character to willingly do so? I've probably made this all too complicated. :lol:.

The final factor is that in Harry's POV, he claimed that his sacrifice would be more difficult than either his mother's or fathers. Now to me, that would mean that the circumstances would make it so - and I agree they would. However, those same circumstances that made it different, didn't affect how the magic operated, if I have it right. The only thing that made it operate distinctly was that Harry had more people on his mind when he made his than his mother had on hers when she made hers - but apart from that, they were granted the same opportunity to sacrifice and willingly did.

In any case, that is a bit convoluted I think, but the gist is that Harry had to show a lot of resolve in doing what he did for a lot of nameless, faceless people (and some he knew as well) - which did end up a benefit in the number of people that received protection - if I have it right now. :lol:.

I thought Harry let Voldemort kill him because it was the only way to destroy the bit of Voldy's soul that was inside Harry.

That is a good point also. I think that would factor into the idea that Harry knew he had to sacrifice himself so Voldemort would be destroyed - in order to save all those people. So it would still follow that he had the idea of saving others on his mind when he made his sacrifice, imo.

That is a good point also. I think that would factor into the idea that Harry knew he had to sacrifice himself so Voldemort would be destroyed - in order to save all those people. So it would still follow that he had the idea of saving others on his mind when he made his sacrifice, imo.

I agree. In DH after Harry views the memories in the pensieve, not only does he realize there's been a bigger plan all along, but also that Dumbledore knew Harry very well and that Harry would never allow others to die when he knew he could stop it by sacrificing himself.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?

I think that he became a bit more patient... a LOT more patient after living with the Durselys. No, he wouldn't be the same person if his parents had lived -- there'd be no huge Voldemort showdown(s) to build up his courage. If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family/orphanage? Yes, he would be the same.


2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?

I'd say... the second book. "Ginnyisnowheretobefoundshe'smostlikelydeadBUTIMGON NASAVEHERANYWAY!!!!111one11" Yeah... I think it's a bit annoying, but it's probably more on the strength side than the weakness side.

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?

His curiosity makes him open to new possibilities, thus making him realize more. No, he didn't seem to lose it.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?

Strengths: loyalty, bravery, compassion

He overcame some major anger-managment issues...

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?

He doesn't want to lose anybody else, so he protects his loved ones at all costs.

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?

Risking his life and saving Ginny from the Chamber of Secrets, showing mercy to Peter Pettigrew, saving Gabrielle, telling Cedric about the dragons, waiting for Cedric to catch up in the maze, walking to his death in DH for the sake of everyone else, etc.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?

I think they were neccessary.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

Other than the fact that Snape turned out to be good? Well, there's the fact that Snape loved his mother... which is kind of akward, but it might've touched Harry a bit.

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?

I think it was a good choice, yes. Personally, my changes would involve Harry dying, but that's just because I like sad books.

Agreed, that is what I was trying to say as well. Harry's intent and Lily's intent were different (save many v. save one) and so that is where the protection went. And it wouldn't matter what the offer was that Voldemort gave, just so that one of the choices allowed for a sacrifice. That brings up the other issue because Lily put the barrier against the door of the bedroom to keep Voldemort out, whereas Harry marched right up to him handing himself over for sacrifice (which of course Lily would not because she wanted to protect her son). The dad stood like a barrier in sacrifice to give her time, but that wasn't like Harry either because although Harry stood before Voldemort to be killed in that manner, he was not serving as a barrier for anything, imo. So Harry's deal was a bit different in that regard also. Plus as you mentioned, he didn't have to be there at all that night - he could have run out of the country and dealt with it all later. But if I understand correctly, none of these factors mattered - it was merely the idea that he was granted an opportunity to sacrifice himself, or not, at that time, and had the character to do so willingly which enabled the magic, right? And in Lily's case all of the stuff she said and did didn't matter either, only that she had the opportunity to sacrifice herself or not, at that time, and also had the character to willingly do so? I've probably made this all too complicated. :lol:.

The final factor is that in Harry's POV, he claimed that his sacrifice would be more difficult than either his mother's or fathers. Now to me, that would mean that the circumstances would make it so - and I agree they would. However, those same circumstances that made it different, didn't affect how the magic operated, if I have it right. The only thing that made it operate distinctly was that Harry had more people on his mind when he made his than his mother had on hers when she made hers - but apart from that, they were granted the same opportunity to sacrifice and willingly did.

In any case, that is a bit convoluted I think, but the gist is that Harry had to show a lot of resolve in doing what he did for a lot of nameless, faceless people (and some he knew as well) - which did end up a benefit in the number of people that received protection - if I have it right now. :lol:.

I think you do. It basically comes down to Voldemort presenting each of them a choice that included the option to save themselves at that time. If Voldemort had stormed into the room and just killed Lily - or stunned her, tied her up, etc... - then her death would not have invoked the ancient magic any more than James' death did. It was him giving her the chance to save herself by stepping aside that enabled her to do that. Likewise, if he had joined the battle in DH himself and engaged Harry in a duel to the death, then Harry's death would not have resulted in those people being protected. Though Harry would still have the choice to return as long as Voldemort was still alive.

Harry's situation appears to be a bit more complex because Voldemort was telling him opposite. Rather than step aside and let me kill these people, he was saying come to me and I won't kill these people. But the actual choice is the same. Harry could have run away from that and let the battle continue when the hour was up. Likewise, he could have stayed in the castle and continued fighting himself when the battle resumed after that hour. Both of those options meant that more people he cared about would die because they were refusing to hand him over and he was refusing to hand himself over. So Harry did have the option to save himself - just as Lily did. The choice Voldemort gave him presented the opportunity to save others - similar to Lily, but on a larger scale - because his offer was to stop the battle so no one else would die that night if Harry came to him willingly.

I can see the reasoning behind Harry feeling that his sacrifice would be more difficult. Lily had a very strong motivation in that she was protecting her son. She loved him a great deal and would have done anything to save him - even give up her own life. Harry walked to his own death to save everyone fighting. He hadn't even met some of those people before - he didn't even know all the students who stayed behind to fight - but he was willing to die to save them anyway. It is much more difficult to make such a huge sacrifice for someone you don't know than it is for someone you do know and already care about.

At the same time, it's not so difficult because those people he didn't know were doing the same for him. They were there, fighting and refusing to turn him over to Voldemort. They were willing to risk their lives to protect him even though he had never met them. They were fighting to save everyone from Voldemort - not just someone they cared about. And I would say the same for Lily - the night she died, she was focused on Harry, but I fully believe Lily would have stood against Voldemort to save others as well. That's the distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys were willing to take that risk for people they didn't know for the good of everyone. Their choice was a bit different from Harry's because they were fighting and taking a risk rather than making a sacrifice, but that's still an act of compassion.

That is a good point also. I think that would factor into the idea that Harry knew he had to sacrifice himself so Voldemort would be destroyed - in order to save all those people. So it would still follow that he had the idea of saving others on his mind when he made his sacrifice, imo.

I agree. Harry was motivated by the necessity to destroy the piece of Voldemort's soul within himself so that Voldemort could be defeated. He accepted that he had to die in order to achieve that. However, he was also motivated by the fact that he couldn't bear the thought of anyone else dying to protect him. Voldemort had promised to end the battle that night if Harry came to him within that hour. Harry didn't have to walk into the forest to meet Voldemort and just let himself be killed without doing anything to defend himself. He could have waited until the battle resumed and kept fighting until he was killed - which would have achieved the same thing in the end in regards to that piece of Voldemort's soul being destroyed and Harry having the option to return if he choice. But that would have meant more people dying and Harry couldn't bear the thought of that. That's what I think Dumbledore was referring to when he said that, if knew Harry, he would go about it in a way that would truly mean the end of Voldemort. He knew Harry would not be able to bear the thought of anyone else dying to protect him. He knew Harry would sacrifice himself to try and save others.

Welcome to the post-DH discussion of Harry Potter.Previous discussion without spoilers can be found here: Harry Potter: Character Analysis (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=96607)




1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Riddle?

2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?

1. Living with the Dursley's made Harry both a very loving person for the people he considers family (i.e. his friends, Sirius, etc.). If his parents had still lived, I think that he still would have had that love, but it wouldn't be as deep. It would still be deep, but not as deep. And Harry might have been a little bit better cared for, and known more about the wizarding world. The same goes for if Harry lived with another wizarding family. The effect that came from Harry living with the Dursley's might have come from living in an orphanage.

2. I think Harry's first hint of the "saving people" thing, is in book 1 when he and Ron save Hermione from the troll. I think it is both a strength and a weakness. A strength because Harry has saved quite a few people and it shows selflessness. It's a weakness because, as seen in book 5, it can lead Harry into a trap. I think it was within Harry's character to sacrifice himself to save those he loved, we'd seen it through out the whole series.

3. I think this curiosity helps Harry when it comes to learning about the Horcruxes, but in some ways, in book 7 he stifles his curiousity when it comes to Xenophilius Lovegood, and he's right to do so ;).

4. Harry's greatest strengths are his bravery and his loyalty. He overcomes his weaknesses, such as his anger or his arogance, in some ways, through the loyalty of his friends, they put up with him, and helped him through it. :D

5. The loses Harry suffered helped him become independent, whether in a good or bad way, and they have also, raised his questions about death, and his near-death in book 7 helped him finally come to his answers.

6. I think some examples of Harry's pure heart are how he's saved people from death or injustice, his hatred of the dark arts, and of course Voldemort being unable to posses him without feeling great pain.

7. I think Harry using the unforgivables shows that he is flawed, which I like, because no character should be perfect, and that it built the tension of would he actually use the Avada Kedavra on Voldemort?.

8. I think Harry forgave Snape because he realized why Dumbledore trusted him, because he had shown love for someone other than himself. Something none of the Death Eaters can do.

9. I think it's perfect that Harry becomes an auror! I think he was able to save even more people from the dark arts through his work, and he might have even prevented some from turning to the dark arts.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived?
Yes he would have. Deep down, he would have been exactly who he is now;the best of James and Lily, a true Gryfindor


2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?
It's a flaw for him but a strength of his character

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
Well, the minute someone said something bad about Dumbledore that he didnt know he would be completely unarmed. Now , no matter what anyone says about him, Harry will still trust the Dumbledore we all knew and loved


5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?
From James and Lily: Courage, Friend ship and the power of Sacrifice
Sirius: "Life's too short. But if i'm next , I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters as I can, and Voldemort too f i can manage it"


8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
Because he understood. He understood his strengths and his flaws and why he did what he did. He got how brave Snape was and what he sacrificed for Lily Potter's son.
9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?
Kicked Umbridge out.Done somthing about Rita Skeeter.

On the Snape thread we are having a discussion of what Harry tells his son Albus about Snape in the Epilogue:

"Albus Severus, you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew."

In particular, we wondered why Harry used the word "probably".

Personally, I think it shows Harry learned his lesson about assuming he knows everything about the people he knows. That they may have hidden aspects to their personalities, secrets in their past or present life, which Harry is not privy to. Among the people he knows, I think Harry believes that Snape was the bravest. But he knows, also, that he may not know all the relevant facts. Hence, "probably".

After all, he would never have considered saying such a thing about Severus at the end of HBP, when it was already an entirely reasonable sentiment to express based on the complete set of facts available to us (and him, by the end of the series).

On the Snape thread we are having a discussion of what Harry tells his son Albus about Snape in the Epilogue:

"Albus Severus, you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew."

In particular, we wondered why Harry used the word "probably".

Personally, I think it shows Harry learned his lesson about assuming he knows everything about the people he knows. That they may have hidden aspects to their personalities, secrets in their past or present life, which Harry is not privy to. Among the people he knows, I think Harry believes that Snape was the bravest. But he knows, also, that he may not know all the relevant facts. Hence, "probably".

After all, he would never have considered saying such a thing about Severus at the end of HBP, when it was already an entirely reasonable sentiment to express based on the complete set of facts available to us (and him, by the end of the series).

But that is kind of the point isn't it? If readers believe spying is brave, then Snape being brave is a foregone conclusion. Whether Harry thinks things Snape did were braver than anything anyone else ever had to face (assuming he doesn't know the details of what Snape or anyone else actually had to face) is just a judgment call on his part - and not necessarily how everyone similarly situated (lacking details) might call it.

----------

My perspective of the comment isn't concerned with the word probably. I think in any way you look at it, it is a nice sentiment about Snape, but I don't feel it addresses the more relevant concerns that arose out of Snape and Harry's relationship throughout the 7 book series, so it comes across as a wholly lacking final sentiment, imo.

On the Snape thread we are having a discussion of what Harry tells his son Albus about Snape in the Epilogue:

"Albus Severus, you were named for two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew."

In particular, we wondered why Harry used the word "probably".

Personally, I think it shows Harry learned his lesson about assuming he knows everything about the people he knows. That they may have hidden aspects to their personalities, secrets in their past or present life, which Harry is not privy to. Among the people he knows, I think Harry believes that Snape was the bravest. But he knows, also, that he may not know all the relevant facts. Hence, "probably".

After all, he would never have considered saying such a thing about Severus at the end of HBP, when it was already an entirely reasonable sentiment to express based on the complete set of facts available to us (and him, by the end of the series).

As the original poser of the point what I feel is I would have preffered that there was no qualifing adjective at all. What would have been wrong with just 'the bravest man'? 'Probably' carries a flavour of doubt. Over egging the pudding a bit.

I don't think that it was supposed to make sense in a deep analysis sort of way. I think Harry and Ginny just wanted to honor Dumbledore for spending a good portion of his life on the war effort and Snape for his participation that ended in his death. The other names were for traditional loved ones.

From the Snape thread:

Does he? The prophecy says that only Harry has the power to defeat the Dark Lord. Harry could have just as easily been Neville. Someone not nearly as talented or confident yet equally courageous. The Prophecy says that Harry alone has the power. To me it is hubris on anyone's part--including Dumbledore and Snape, to assume that they know better than Harry how to beat the dark lord. All these assumptions by people who are not Harry, could never be Harry, and never have Harry's power or connection to Voldemort thinking that they know what is best for Harry in regards to his quest against Voldy? What if the prophecy said that Draco was the chosen one? The prophecy never states that the hero need to be "against" Voldy i.e. be on the side of light. Nor does it claim talent or goodness or powerfulness will be key in Voldy's downfall. Draco could have been the next Dark Lord and destroyed Voldy given different circumstances.

Harry was only 16 at the time-- a good kid, but certainly not the soul of wisdom or knowledgeable about all the intricacies of Voldemort's plans. He was flawed just as everyone else was...possibly a little more so because he was dealing with so much and really beginning to face with what it meant to be a true grown up. He may be the Chosen One, but he is also an adolescent. They have parents and people who look out for them for a reason. :lol:

It's also just plain logical of Snape and Dumbledore to believe that Harry needed as much information and skills as possible. Who knows what would come in handy, but anyone going into danger needs a wide arsenal of tools at their disposal.

What if Dumbledore had just stepped back and decided, "Ok, Harry, it's up to you to pick what's important"?

Well, first of all Harry doesn't need that pressure. He was coming apart at the seams during OotP, so what would happen if he just stopped having adult support?

Second of all, Dumbledore would not have made all those intricate plans around the Elder Wand, since that would have been presumptuous to decide that was so important...and so Harry would have really died when Voldemort AK'd him, since his AK mainly ineffective because he did not truly own the wand.

Second of all, Dumbledore would not have made all those intricate plans around the Elder Wand, since that would have been presumptuous to decide that was so important...and so Harry would have really died when Voldemort AK'd him, since his AK mainly ineffective because he did not truly own the wand.
Harry wasn't protected by the wand in the forest, he was protected by the fact Harry's blood (and thus Lily's protection for Harry) ran through Voldemort's veins. Harry was protected the same way as when he was 18 months old. The wand doesn't figure into the equation until the final duel, and even then, only as a mitigating factor (making sure Voldemort's spell didn't get cast before Harry's).

Harry wasn't protected by the wand in the forest, he was protected by the fact Harry's blood (and thus Lily's protection for Harry) ran through Voldemort's veins. Harry was protected the same way as when he was 18 months old. The wand doesn't figure into the equation until the final duel, and even then, only as a mitigating factor (making sure Voldemort's spell didn't get cast before Harry's).

Really? Well, if that's the case, I stand corrected on that point. Thanks! :D

To be perfectly honest, the EW thing still confuses me sometimes. :rotfl:

To me it is hubris on anyone's part--including Dumbledore and Snape, to assume that they know better than Harry how to beat the dark lord. All these assumptions by people who are not Harry, could never be Harry, and never have Harry's power or connection to Voldemort thinking that they know what is best for Harry in regards to his quest against Voldy?

Well Dumbledore did know better than Harry in certain aspects with respect to the war and Harry's soul bit. Harry always had the choice to obey him or not. Even after viewing Snape's memories, Harry could decide whether he needed to get rid of the soul bit the way Dumbledore suggested or whether he needed to think about it a bit more, consult Hermione and then decide. Harry decided to trust Dumbledore. I think that was what made the difference. Harry trusted Dumbledore to do the best for him, and he followed Dumbledore's suggestions, based on that trust.

I don't think that it's hubris for Dumbledore, who knew Voldemort for sixty years, or Snape, who spies on Voldemort for the Order, to assume they know more about taking on the Dark Lord than Harry does. Remember, the only power Harry has that the Dark Lord doesn't is love. He doesn't have amazing magical abilities. Sure, he has insight into Voldemort's mind, but that really only allows Harry to know where he'll be or what he's doing at that particular moment. Bear in mind, this connection opens up only when Voldemort is feeling extreme rage. It wouldn't be very useful in a combat situation, as Harry leaves his own mind, thus leaving him wide open. Harry knew himself that Dumbledore didn't give him enough to go on to find the Horcruxes, and only got them all through luck. Bellatrix freaked out at the Manor, which they wouldn't have found out about if they went about hunting normally, and they wouldn't've known about the diadem or its hiding spot in the Room of Requirement if Harry hadn't seen into Voldemort's mind after they got the cup. It has nothing to do with hubris and everything to do with wishing that the one hope for the Wizarding world is prepared enough to save it from the clutches of the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time.

I didn't really believe it was a matter of who knew more. Harry's life was in the balance and he should have been given a fair opportunity to make a decision regarding his mortality himself. Telling him at the last minute when he is up to his neck in Voldemort and his friends, loved ones and like-family are all threatened or dead, was improper, imo. Harry's choice came at a time when he was fundamentally and realistically left without a choice for a person of his compassion and loyalty, imo. Dumbledore planned it that way - he admitted it right in canon. So To me, Harry got the short end of the stick on that one at the hand of Dumbledore through his Agent, Snape.

I don't think that it's hubris for Dumbledore, who knew Voldemort for sixty years, or Snape, who spies on Voldemort for the Order, to assume they know more about taking on the Dark Lord than Harry does. Remember, the only power Harry has that the Dark Lord doesn't is love.

I agree. Harry was able to defeat Voldemort because of the efforts of Dumbledore and Snape and of course others led by Dumbledore who helped Harry stand before Voldemort in the Final Battle.

I didn't really believe it was a matter of who knew more. Harry's life was in the balance and he should have been given a fair opportunity to make a decision regarding his mortality himself. Telling him at the last minute when he is up to his neck in Voldemort and his friends, loved ones and like-family are all threatened or dead, was improper, imo. Harry's choice came at a time when he was fundamentally and realistically left without a choice for a person of his compassion and loyalty, imo. Dumbledore planned it that way - he admitted it right in canon. So To me, Harry got the short end of the stick on that one at the hand of Dumbledore through his Agent, Snape.

Be that as it may, that is how Rowling planned it. We never see Harry question any of this. There is that brief moment he has of feeling betrayed after viewing Snape's memories: and then Harry completely accepts what DD had planned for him, because to Harry it makes sense and this is apparently the only way to defeat Voldemort.

Therefore I conclude that Rowling didn't intend any of this to reflect badly on Harry (for being overly naive about his mentor) or on Dumbledore (for being Machiavellian, although it is clear to me that he loved Harry) ... or on Snape. The fact that Harry still loves and admires Dumbledore at the end of the saga, and honours Snape, and then naming his son after both of them, confirms this to me triple-fold. :lol: :)

Whilst the reader is free, of course, to question DD's handling of Harry, and to question the morality of DD's actions posed by the text, Harry himself gets over his betrayal by DD very quickly and forgives DD everything. As his reaction to DD's portrait -- and DD's reaction to him -- richly proves.

The Harry-centric text, in other words, is designed to shape the reader's response. :cool: This doesn't mean that the reader is meant to take everything Harry sees and hears at face value -- Harry is often shown to be wrong about stuff. But I do think, in the closing chapters of DH, that we are intended to take the Harry-rule (that love conquers everything) to its conclusion: DD and Snape are forgiven, and all is well. :cool:

All of which underlines for me the fact that Rowling is writing a modern fairytale, not a psychologically gritty thriller. :lol: And Harry himself is part of a particular literary tradition: the young, untried hero on a quest who grows morally through the help of an older mentor.

Harry IMO needed to get the short stick, for how else would Voldemort be vanquished once and for all? That was the question I believe Dumbledore asked himself before giving in to the inevitable; the question Snape asked Dumbledore, clearly intending to walk out of any plans until he too realised there was nothing that could be done and, in the end Harry understood why he needed to walk to the Forest.

I think Harry felt betrayed because he did not get information this from Dumbledore; but he understood later that Dumbledore was trying to protect him until the time when he could not conceal this information from Harry.

Be that as it may, that is how Rowling planned it. We never see Harry question any of this.

Well I don't think that is proof so much. Peter killed Cedric and Harry didn't question that either - but I don't conclude 3 cheers for Peter. Harry's anguish reflected my understanding of his conclusions in that situation and in that case they matched my own.

There is that brief moment he has of feeling betrayed after viewing Snape's memories: and then Harry completely accepts what DD had planned for him, because to Harry it makes sense and this is apparently the only way to defeat Voldemort.

Therefore I conclude that Rowling didn't intend any of this to reflect badly on Harry (for being overly naive about his mentor) or on Dumbledore (for being Machiavellian, although it is clear to me that he loved Harry) ... or on Snape. The fact that Harry still loves and admires Dumbledore at the end of the saga, and honours Snape, and then naming his son after both of them, confirms this to me triple-fold. :lol: :)

In terms of the actually storytelling, Harry only felt anguish about Cedric for a brief moment too after the fact. But that was all that was necessary to understand how he felt about what had happened. I think his anguish after the revelation of what Dumbledore had planned and done was similarly telling. Regardless as to whether Harry later went on to forgive Peter and Dumbledore or anyone else for what they did, in the moment of occurrence, there is devastation. I think that speaks to how I was supposed to see it - and did see it - not good.

Whilst the reader is free, of course, to question DD's handling of Harry, and to question the morality of DD's actions posed by the text, Harry himself gets over his betrayal by DD very quickly and forgives DD everything. As his reaction to DD's portrait -- and DD's reaction to him -- richly proves.

The Harry-centric text, in other words, is designed to shape the reader's response. :cool: This doesn't mean that the reader is meant to take everything Harry sees and hears at face value -- Harry is often shown to be wrong about stuff. But I do think, in the closing chapters of DH, that we are intended to take the Harry-rule (that love conquers everything) to its conclusion: DD and Snape are forgiven, and all is well. :cool:

But that is the end of the book, I am referring to what happened in the midst of the storyline. Harry forgave all kinds of people - he was spitting mad at Hermione after the broom incident, but forgave her too. That doesn't mean that what she'd done was okay. I agree it means Harry got over it, but my point was that the conclusion, for me, wasn't that it was all okay merely because things worked out in the end and Harry managed to get over it. That supports the idea that any means to get there is okay - Voldemort's ideology. I feel it was important that the means be as good as the ends and because they were not, Harry ended up with the short end of the stick - in a position where he once again had to forgive.


To me, All of which underlines for me the fact that Rowling is writing a modern fairytale, not a psychologically gritty thriller. :lol: And Harry himself is part of a particular literary tradition: the young, untried hero on a quest who grows morally through the help of an older mentor.

Well sometimes she got a bit gritty, but more in terms of horror I suppose. I do think Harry grew morally via his interaction with Dumbledore. But I think some of that growth came by Harry acknowledging Dumbledore's wrongs and deciding that he would not repeat them. Dumbledore was disloyal in not disclosing the truth of the matter, imo, and I think JKR made a point of having Harry disclose the full truth to Voldemort at the end, despite the possibility of it truly harming him, because she wanted to show that he was a not like Dumbledore in that regard. He would not keep mortal secrets from others, even his enemies, to their detriment. That was a lesson he learned from Dumbledore because although Dumbledore may have felt bad about it, he in no way felt nearly as bad as Harry did when he discovered the truth, imo. It was a combination of anger, devastation and disbelief in the face of Dumbledore's betrayal (Harry's word in the text), and I think Harry's experience then taught him that he never wanted anyone to feel that way due to his behavior - no matter who they were.

In terms of the actually storytelling, Harry only felt anguish about Cedric for a brief moment too after the fact. But that was all that was necessary to understand how he felt about what had happened. I think his anguish after the revelation of what Dumbledore had planned and done was similarly telling.

Well, it would have been surprising if Harry hadn't felt betrayed, certainly. Nonetheless, my point stands, IMO: despite those feelings of betrayal, he didn't actually reject DD's plan. He went right along with it.

That supports the idea that any means to get there is okay - Voldemort's ideology.

That, I would suggest, is the author's problem, not the reader's. :cool: She sets up a 'no way out' situation for Harry, and that basically is how Voldemort gets defeated.

Dumbledore was disloyal in not disclosing the truth of the matter, imo, and I think JKR made a point of having Harry disclose the full truth to Voldemort at the end, despite the possibility of it truly harming him, because she wanted to show that he was a not like Dumbledore in that regard.

I'm confused by the way you've phrased this. Do you mean that Harry thought that disclosing the full truth to Voldemort might 'truly harm' Voldemort? :hmm: If so, why would he possibly care about Voldemort's tender feelings? :huh: Voldemort is a psychopath determined to murder him!

He would not keep mortal secrets from others, even his enemies, to their detriment.

But it is completely in Harry's interests to disclose those secrets to Voldemort! He couldn't care less about whether something is to Voldemort's detriment: why would he? -- the crucial thing is to defeat Voldemort before the guy kills him! His revelations (about Snape, and the Elder Wand) put Voldemort at a psychological disadvantage: Harry knows more than the Dark Lord does and basically taunts his enemy with that knowledge. Of course Voldemort does an excellent job of bluffing, but all these revelations must have been quite a shock to him. :lol:

Harry is a good tactician in his final confrontation with Voldemort: he has all the cards, and he plays them well. :cool: Frankly, I think he is mocking Voldemort most of the time -- Voldemort, full of hubris as ever, can't resist the opportunity to gloat and make a big speech :lol: and Harry plays to this weakness. ;)

That was a lesson he learned from Dumbledore because although Dumbledore may have felt bad about it, he in no way felt nearly as bad as Harry did when he discovered the truth, imo. It was a combination of anger, devastation and disbelief in the face of Dumbledore's betrayal (Harry's word in the text), and I think Harry's experience then taught him that he never wanted anyone to feel that way due to his behavior - no matter who they were.

Well, I can accept that about Harry's character overall, but I don't see what it has to do with Voldemort. Harry wanted Voldemort dead, period. :lol: There was no other way round it: Voldemort had put Harry in that position, he was never going to give Harry a chance, so Harry does all he can to survive. Which he does. :tu:

I'm confused by the way you've phrased this. Do you mean that Harry thought that disclosing the full truth to Voldemort might 'truly harm' Voldemort? :hmm: If so, why would he possibly care about Voldemort's tender feelings? :huh: Voldemort is a psychopath determined to murder him!

Harm Harry. If Voldemort had believed Harry's assertion that he was not the master of the Elder Wand (he said he didn't believe him).

But it is completely in Harry's interests to disclose those secrets to Voldemort! He couldn't care less about whether something is to Voldemort's detriment: why would he?

Well - it was not in his interest for Voldemort to find out the truth: that he was not the master of the Elder Wand. Without that knowledge, Voldemort believes he has the advantage - while Harry would know he did not. In fact, Harry believed he was the one with that advantage. Not exactly fair dealing - but I would agree most would figure it didn't matter since Voldy was up to his ears in evil doing. But Harry apparently didn't see it that way and he disclosed all of the facts. There was no real reason to do so (storywise) - hence I feel JKR wanted Harry to come across to readers as having learned the value of fair dealing.

Well, I can accept that about Harry's character overall, but I don't see what it has to do with Voldemort. Harry wanted Voldemort dead, period. :lol: There was no other way round it: Voldemort had put Harry in that position, he was never going to give Harry a chance, so Harry does all he can to survive. Which he does. :tu:

Well I dunno if Harry wanted him dead. He offered him an opportunity to show remorse. If Voldy had showed true remorse, I doubt Harry would have said: "great! Avada Kedavra!" I think Harry wanted him stopped and under the circumstances (the way things went), he had no choice but to respond as he did which ended in Voldy's death. But the idea was to deal fairly I think, and having an advantage over Voldemort's mortality, unknown to him, would be unfair dealing in the strictest sense. As you pointed out - who cares - true, but, I think JKR simply wanted Harry to be completely above board in that regard - just the opposite of Dumbledore. Because she didn't want to show that he was willing to adopt Dumbledore's bad habits - even at this level where it might have been widely accepted for him to do so.

Harry ended up at the short end of the stick not because Albus put him there, but because, in reverse chronological order, Voldemort, Lily, Voldemort, Peter, and Severus put him there with their combined actions. (Trying to kill Harry after killing his mother while in possession of numerous Horcruxes and a splintered soul; stepping in front of Harry; giving Lily a chance to live and then killing her; betraying the Potters to Voldemort; begging for Lily's life after reporting the Prophecy).

Harry was angry at Albus not for causing his death or contributing to it in any way. He was angry and betrayed because he thought Albus had dishonestly fostered in him the hope that he might survive. This is stated in what I consider fairly explicit terms in the text.

Finally, the truth. Lying with his face pressed into the dusty carpet of the office where he thought he was learnign the secrets of victory, Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive.

(Only, of course, he WAS. See "King's Cross").

AND

Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing. Of course rhere had been a bigger plan; Harry had simply been too foolish to see it, he realized that now. He had never questioned his own assumption that Dumbledore wanted him alive.

Harry had assumed Dumbledore wanted him alive, because Dumbledore had told him in HBP that he hoped what Harry learned from him that year, would help Harry to survive. Which, as it happened, was the truth.

Harry does indeed think of his fear of death, and his desire to continue living, but not in a way that blames Albus for the death. It is the supposed lies that have Harry angry, and the disappointment that one he loved so much, cared, apparently, so little for him.

Thus, as I see it, Harry no more forgave Albus for his "plan" than he forgave Snape for his "murder" of Albus. No, first in "The Prince's Tale" and then in "King's Cross", he learned that he had gotten certain things about these two men and their intentions/actions, completely wrong. Albus did all he could to ensure Harry's survival, Albus truly loved Harry, and once Harry knew that, he could forgive Albus the other, smaller things he might also hold against him (not telling him about the Hallows directly, e. g.).

Harm Harry. If Voldemort had believed Harry's assertion that he was not the master of the Elder Wand (he said he didn't believe him).

Oh, OK. :tu:

Well - it was not in his interest for Voldemort to find out the truth: that he was not the master of the Elder Wand. Without that knowledge, Voldemort believes he has the advantage - while Harry would know he did not. In fact, Harry believed he was the one with that advantage. Not exactly fair dealing - but I would agree most would figure it didn't matter since Voldy was up to his ears in evil doing.

Right, OK, we were clearly talking at cross-purposes before. (The Elder Wand business does my head in anyway. :yuhup: )

But Harry apparently didn't see it that way and he disclosed all of the facts. There was no real reason to do so (storywise) - hence I feel JKR wanted Harry to come across to readers as having learned the value of fair dealing.

'Fair dealing' ... hmm, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Neither have I ever related the way Harry deals with Voldemort to the way Dumbledore dealt with him. :hmm:

Well I dunno if Harry wanted him dead.

Whether Harry wanted Voldemort dead or not does not factor into it, IMO. As soon as they start circling each other, Harry knows perfectly well this will be a duel to the death and there is only so long that he can hold Voldemort off. Voldemort is there to kill Harry and Harry has only so much time left. Voldemort has left him no choice but to try to take him out.

He offered him an opportunity to show remorse. If Voldy had showed true remorse, I doubt Harry would have said: "great! Avada Kedavra!"

Right, but the moment for that was long gone.

I think Harry wanted him stopped and under the circumstances (the way things went), he had no choice but to respond as he did which ended in Voldy's death. But the idea was to deal fairly I think, and having an advantage over Voldemort's mortality, unknown to him, would be unfair dealing in the strictest sense.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain round this concept of 'fair dealing', just because I approach this whole scene so differently. I don't think Harry cares two sweet hoots about being 'fair' to Voldemort. Why would he? Voldemort has literally left Harry with no other choice but to try to kill him before he kills Harry. This is Voldemort's doing, not Harry's: all Harry is doing is acting in self-defence!

I think Harry told Voldemort about the EW just because Harry couldn't help himself: I really don't think he told Voldemort this because he wanted to be nice and fair to the guy :err: Frankly, I think that Harry is taunting his nemesis. Which is fair enough, because this other guy just wants him dead.

It's not that Harry lacks mercy or reason -- he does say to Voldemort, 'think about what you're doing, otherwise you'll end up a lost soul' -- but basically, it's either him or Voldemort so Harry does what he needs to do.

As you pointed out - who cares - true, but, I think JKR simply wanted Harry to be completely above board in that regard - just the opposite of Dumbledore. Because she didn't want to show that he was willing to adopt Dumbledore's bad habits - even at this level where it might have been widely accepted for him to do so.

I think we are miles apart here, Wick, so we'll have to let it rest. :) I just don't see what any of this has to do with Dumbledore and how he dealt with Harry and the Elder Wand business. I truly don't.

To me the Harry/Voldemort showdown is all about Harry doing what needs to be done, in a very extreme situation. And if he mocks his enemy a little while he's doing it, I can't find it in me to judge him for that. :whistle: :)

I also can't wrap my head around the suggestion Harry did not deal fairly wtih Voldemort. :lol: Voldemort, entirely of his own volition and through his own errors and choices, put himself into Harry's hands. HE created the blood connection that allowed Harry to live (a second time!). HE sent Draco to Hogwarts as his assassin, setting in motion the events that enabled Draco's "defeat" of Albus. HE murdered Snape, thinking this would finally solve his wand issues (oops). And, most importantly, HE chose to use a deadly curse even after Harry warned him, in gory detail, that he had made all of these mistakes.

All Harry did was explain these mistakes to Voldemort, and then cast the purely defensive Disarming Charm when Voldemort, in blatant disregard of these warnings, attempted to kill Harry.

Personally, I believe that Harry's final words to Voldemort were attempts at taunting in order to humble him, considering the tone suggested by what he said and the sarcastic use of Voldemort's "normal" name: Tom. It wasn't simply about fairness, IMO. It was about weakening the confidence of his adversary, as Harry had the unusual advantage of words after surprisingly coming back to "life" and surviving the Killing Curse once more. Someone else mentioned Harry realizing that Dumbledore did the right thing, and so he failed to understand the logic until then.

EDIT: IMO, Harry discovering some of the information by himself was for the best. In a way, it contributed to his maturing journey, because he had to think deeply about trusting the word of others, whether or not it's best to know everything upfront vs. gradually learning such profound things, etc.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain round this concept of 'fair dealing', just because I approach this whole scene so differently. I don't think Harry cares two sweet hoots about being 'fair' to Voldemort. Why would he? Voldemort has literally left Harry with no other choice but to try to kill him before he kills Harry. This is Voldemort's doing, not Harry's: all Harry is doing is acting in self-defence!

Well by "fair" I mean, "not take advantage of." I didn't mean at the point of their attacking one another, I meant before hand. Earlier on, Voldemort still had choices to make. If he had believed Harry and understood how close to defeat he actually was, it could have made him respond differently. Maybe not, but by Harry laying out all of the facts he had on the table, he could never be accused of keeping important knowledge from Voldemort that might have made him make a different choice in the end.

For example, if Harry hadn't told him the truth about the Elder Wand; I would say: "you know, if Voldemort had known that, and realized he was likely to be defeated, he might have made a different choice - he might have chosen survival (even in Azkaban) over likely death." But because Harry disclosed all of the facts that he had (i.e., dealt fairly with Voldemort), I cannot say that. Now I can place all of the blame squarely on Voldemort. He knew the whole truth and he unreasonably chose not to believe it and his death was his own fault.

I think we are miles apart here, Wick, so we'll have to let it rest. :) I just don't see what any of this has to do with Dumbledore and how he dealt with Harry and the Elder Wand business. I truly don't.

Well it was how Dumbledore dealt with Harry over his being a horcrux and having to sacrifice himself (not over the Elder Wand). Like above, if Dumbledore had given Harry all the facts at a time when Harry had a legitimate opportunity to make decisions about it all, then I couldn't say anything about Dumbledore's untruthfulness.

You remember in the series Dumbledore said something like, 'if you or Voldemort simply walked away from the confrontation, the prophecy would not have to come to pass'. Well, if Dumbledore had never told Harry about the prophecy, Harry would have done just that. But Dumbledore did tell him, and arranged his life in such a way as to make Harry want to confront Voldemort - and hence, make the prophecy come to pass. Once Dumbledore did that, he was duty bound to tell Harry all of the facts - not just those that were most advantageous to his personal goal, imo.

We can agree to disagree, but hopefully I have explained what I meant a little better.

Personally, I believe that Harry's final words to Voldemort were attempts at taunting in order to humble him, considering the tone suggested by what he said and the sarcastic use of Voldemort's "normal" name: Tom. It wasn't simply about fairness, IMO. It was about weakening the confidence of his adversary, as Harry had the unusual advantage of words after surprisingly coming back to "life" and surviving the Killing Curse once more.

I agree. Harry is quite the tactician in his final showdown with Voldy.

EDIT: IMO, Harry discovering some of the information by himself was for the best. In a way, it contributed to his maturing journey, because he had to think deeply about trusting the word of others, whether or not it's best to know everything upfront vs. gradually learning such profound things, etc.

:agree:

Well by "fair" I mean, "not take advantage of." I didn't mean at the point of their attacking one another, I meant before hand. Earlier on, Voldemort still had choices to make. If he had believed Harry and understood how close to defeat he actually was, it could have made him respond differently.

Possibly, but given Voldemort's character, I find that very unlikely. And I think Harry was completely realistic and knew that too.

Maybe not, but by Harry laying out all of the facts he had on the table, he could never be accused of keeping important knowledge from Voldemort that might have made him make a different choice in the end.

Who would judge Harry if he had withheld that information from Voldemort?? Harry doesn't owe Voldemort a damn thing.

For example, if Harry hadn't told him the truth about the Elder Wand; I would say: "you know, if Voldemort had known that, and realized he was likely to be defeated, he might have made a different choice - he might have chosen survival (even in Azkaban) over likely death." But because Harry disclosed all of the facts that he had (i.e., dealt fairly with Voldemort), I cannot say that. Now I can place all of the blame squarely on Voldemort. He knew the whole truth and he unreasonably chose not to believe it and his death was his own fault.

I would still blame Voldemort for instigating that final duel to the death even if Harry had withheld the information about the Elder Wand. Harry owes Voldemort nothing.

Well it was how Dumbledore dealt with Harry over his being a horcrux and having to sacrifice himself (not over the Elder Wand). Like above, if Dumbledore had given Harry all the facts at a time when Harry had a legitimate opportunity to make decisions about it all, then I couldn't say anything about Dumbledore's untruthfulness.

OK, but I just don't see how this relates to Harry and Voldemort or why Harry is supposed to be 'fair' to Voldemort. Harry is a decent person, so he's not the sort of guy to shoot his enemy in the back. But he has no moral obligation to make the final duel 'easier' for Voldemort, IMO.

You remember in the series Dumbledore said something like, 'if you or Voldemort simply walked away from the confrontation, the prophecy would not have to come to pass'. Well, if Dumbledore had never told Harry about the prophecy, Harry would have done just that. But Dumbledore did tell him, and arranged his life in such a way as to make Harry want to confront Voldemort - and hence, make the prophecy come to pass.

Yes: but Voldemort would not have walked away. :huh: He would never have ceased to pursue Harry until the boy was dead. So -- Dumbledore's part aside -- Harry has never had any choice about what to do, prophecy or no prophecy. Either he will be on the run from Voldy all his life, or he can try to defeat Voldemort, which, yes, means the possibility of killing the guy. All this would be true if Harry had never heard about the prophecy.

As arithmancer says ... Voldemort started this whole danged thing and basically engineered his own destruction at Harry's hands.

We can agree to disagree, but hopefully I have explained what I meant a little better.

I think so. ;)

You remember in the series Dumbledore said something like, 'if you or Voldemort simply walked away from the confrontation, the prophecy would not have to come to pass'. Well, if Dumbledore had never told Harry about the prophecy, Harry would have done just that. But Dumbledore did tell him, and arranged his life in such a way as to make Harry want to confront Voldemort - and hence, make the prophecy come to pass. Once Dumbledore did that, he was duty bound to tell Harry all of the facts - not just those that were most advantageous to his personal goal, imo.

We can agree to disagree, but hopefully I have explained what I meant a little better.

But Dumbledore points out to Harry at the end of the OotP that what made him really want to defeat Voldemort was the fact that the Dark Lord attacked his parents, giving him the main reason to want to fight back. So really, Voldemort's original action in killing the Potters got the ball rolling with the prophecy.

Nothing Dumbledore told or didn't tell Harry made that much difference in the end, if you accept that Fate or Destiny took a hand, which I do. Just my opinion. In every mythology on earth, there is always something about people trying to avoid a prophecy by changing things around, but it doesn't work because Fate is in control. For instance, in the story of Perseus, the Prophecy was that he was going to kill his grandfather, so the old man tried to kill him as a baby. But the gods kept Perseus alive, and later he accidentally killed his grandfather by hitting him in the head when a discus slipped from his hand. :lol:

Dumbledore wasn't perfect and was not a seer. He wasn't even sure Harry was a Horcrux until possibly CoS when he learned about the Diary and the Parseltongue ability. By then, Harry had faced Voldemort twice and survived, destroying Quirrelmort and Tom Riddle. Harry did that in spite of Dumbledore's repeated warnings to stay out of trouble as well as barriers that should have stopped any child his age, so I don't blame Dumbledore for any of that. JMO

Personally, I believe that Harry's final words to Voldemort were attempts at taunting in order to humble him, considering the tone suggested by what he said and the sarcastic use of Voldemort's "normal" name: Tom.

I think Harry was trying to get Voldemort to give up, to surrender for the last time. Voldemort was a mortal at that time and he could not create more horcruxes (I think) and so Harry I think was trying to tell him that even then it was not too late for him to give up his madness and accept his punishment (from the Ministry). Voldemort of course was too mad to realise that IMO. :D

EDIT: IMO, Harry discovering some of the information by himself was for the best. In a way, it contributed to his maturing journey, because he had to think deeply about trusting the word of others, whether or not it's best to know everything upfront vs. gradually learning such profound things, etc.

In a way his understanding of Dumbledore and his acceptance of Dumbledore on his own made it more meaningful than it would have been otherwise IMO.

Voldemort would have never surrendered to the Ministry, In my opinion. He was far too proud for that, and I'd also bet that his good senses were utterly dominated by the sadistic excitement of having Harry so close to him --- and, as he thought, death. We know that Voldemort was tactical, yes, but he would have scoffed at the idea of being thrown in prison like a common thug.

From the way Harry addressed Voldemort (it seemed snarky, IMO), he was using his advantages in order to corner the enemy. Voldemort most likely took them as battle words and provocations. Harry was just telling him about the Elder Wand in order to batter his confidence and say, in the clearest way possible, You are mortal now, and you will die if this continues. It was never about being fair, because Harry saw Voldemort's soul with Dumbledore and knew that he was a being beyond saving. All that was left for him now had to be death.

Voldemort of course was too mad to realise that IMO. :D

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :tu:

From the way Harry addressed Voldemort (it seemed snarky, IMO), he was using his advantages in order to corner the enemy. Voldemort most likely took them as battle words and provocations. Harry was just telling him about the Elder Wand in order to batter his confidence and say, in the clearest way possible, You are mortal now, and you will die if this continues. It was never about being fair, because Harry saw Voldemort's soul with Dumbledore and knew that he was a being beyond saving. All that was left for him now had to be death.

:tu:

I've seen Harry's appeal to Voldemort interpreted in two ways: a) that he really was offering Voldemort the chance to repent; and b) he was being snarky and taunting Voldemort with the knowledge of what Voldemort would become.

Personally I went for interpretation a) when I read DH for the first time but I think the other interpretation is equally valid.

And ... however Harry meant it, he still didn't owe Voldemort a damn thing. :cool:

Dumbledore himself said, though, that not every prophecy in the Hall comes true. The only reason Harry's came true is because Voldemort acted on it. That's it. Had he not, he never would have caused his own first downfall or his ultimate death. Similarly, if you think about it, would Perseus have killed his grandfather if he hadn't been sent out to sea with his mother? I don't think he would have. He killed Ascrisius with the discus without knowing the man. Had he known his own grandfather, I doubt that he would have killed him.

Also, I think that both interpretations of Harry's words to Voldemort are valid at the same time. Harry is essentially a noble person. He doesn't want to see even his mortal enemy trapped in the form of the flayed baby for eternity. He is too compassionate for that. That being said, this is the man who killed his parents, Cedric Diggory, and how many others. I think that Harry had the right to taunt him just a little bit (and even more than that).

From the Marauder's thread

Harry was also at fault in that situation, in his reckless decision to go haring off to the Ministry of Magic. Should we start blaming him completely for Sirius's death? :hmm:

He feels very, very guilty, something he has to live with all his life IMO. Sirius blamed himself, Dumbledore blamed himself, Snape did and Harry did. Whether I would, would depend on my understanding of the character, their motivations and what I can understand of their reasons for their actions. In that light Snape's teaching; Harry's curse on Amycus, Lupin asking Harry to use curses to kill, Sirius and Lupin wanting to kill Peter come under a different light for me from Sirius' treatment of Kreacher, Harry's spells on Crabbe and Goyle (in HBP), Hermione's charm on McLaggen (in HBP) and Umbridge's general behaviour IMO.

But that is kind of the point isn't it? If readers believe spying is brave, then Snape being brave is a foregone conclusion. Whether Harry thinks things Snape did were braver than anything anyone else ever had to face (assuming he doesn't know the details of what Snape or anyone else actually had to face) is just a judgment call on his part - and not necessarily how everyone similarly situated (lacking details) might call it.

----------

My perspective of the comment isn't concerned with the word probably. I think in any way you look at it, it is a nice sentiment about Snape, but I don't feel it addresses the more relevant concerns that arose out of Snape and Harry's relationship throughout the 7 book series, so it comes across as a wholly lacking final sentiment, imo.

I agree. What stands out to me with Harry's conversation with little Al is that he is focusing on Gryffindor traits - specifically bravery. Little Al is worried about being sorted in Slytherin and Harry chooses to comfort him - not by telling him that there's nothing wrong with being ambitious or cunning, but by telling him that he could still be brave.

The conversation as a whole is very strange because Harry does so much backtracking and double talk you can't really tell what he's trying to say there. His complete disregard of their actions is insulting his parents, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, the entire Weasley family, Neville, Luna, and everyone else who was actually brave enough to stand up to Voldemort and fight him. It's really sad that none of the Potter or Weasley children appear to know what happened or how brave those people were. He tells little Al that it doesn't matter to him if he gets sorted into Slytherin - and then tells him how to get out of it so it's guaranteed that he will not be sorted into Slytherin. Harry's not giving a straight answer about anything. There's just something very wrong about Harry in the epilogue - it's like he's turned into a politician. :scared:

I didn't really believe it was a matter of who knew more. Harry's life was in the balance and he should have been given a fair opportunity to make a decision regarding his mortality himself. Telling him at the last minute when he is up to his neck in Voldemort and his friends, loved ones and like-family are all threatened or dead, was improper, imo. Harry's choice came at a time when he was fundamentally and realistically left without a choice for a person of his compassion and loyalty, imo. Dumbledore planned it that way - he admitted it right in canon. So To me, Harry got the short end of the stick on that one at the hand of Dumbledore through his Agent, Snape.

I agree. Dumbledore definitely sold Harry short on that one. Harry always had the strength to do what needed to be done. From the moment Dumbledore told him about the prophecy, Harry was prepared to die. It wasn't necessary for Dumbledore and Snape to manipulate the situation so that Harry would have no time to think about it and decide the best way to handle it for himself. There was no reason that Dumbledore could not have told Harry in HBP that he also had a piece of Voldemort's soul inside him and explain that so Harry could understand it. He could have told Harry that there was a possibility for him to survive - not a guarantee, but the possibility allows for some hope. He could have gone over his own search for the Horcruxes with Harry so he would know what locations had already been searched and not waste time. He could have told him everything he needed to know about Horcruxes and how to destroy them. He could have given him the sword. Dumbledore could have done so much more than he did. The secrets and lies were not necessary and hindered Harry more than anything else.

And it's not just what that did to Harry. It's all the people who died pointlessly trying to protect Harry up to that point in the battle. The whole first part of that battle was due to them refusing to hand Harry over to Voldemort and choosing to fight instead. Fred, Lupin, Tonks, Colin Creevey, etc... If Dumbledore had been honest with Harry and told him everything that he needed to know, none of that would have been necessary because Harry would have known it was pointless to try and avoid going to Voldemort, IMO.

Harm Harry. If Voldemort had believed Harry's assertion that he was not the master of the Elder Wand (he said he didn't believe him).

Well - it was not in his interest for Voldemort to find out the truth: that he was not the master of the Elder Wand. Without that knowledge, Voldemort believes he has the advantage - while Harry would know he did not. In fact, Harry believed he was the one with that advantage. Not exactly fair dealing - but I would agree most would figure it didn't matter since Voldy was up to his ears in evil doing. But Harry apparently didn't see it that way and he disclosed all of the facts. There was no real reason to do so (storywise) - hence I feel JKR wanted Harry to come across to readers as having learned the value of fair dealing.

Well I dunno if Harry wanted him dead. He offered him an opportunity to show remorse. If Voldy had showed true remorse, I doubt Harry would have said: "great! Avada Kedavra!" I think Harry wanted him stopped and under the circumstances (the way things went), he had no choice but to respond as he did which ended in Voldy's death. But the idea was to deal fairly I think, and having an advantage over Voldemort's mortality, unknown to him, would be unfair dealing in the strictest sense. As you pointed out - who cares - true, but, I think JKR simply wanted Harry to be completely above board in that regard - just the opposite of Dumbledore. Because she didn't want to show that he was willing to adopt Dumbledore's bad habits - even at this level where it might have been widely accepted for him to do so.

Well - storywise - it was a means to explain it all to the reader as well. But I agree with what you're saying. He had come to realize that secrets and lies were not always the best solution. Dumbledore's secrets and lies had hindered him more than they had helped. He can forgive Dumbledore for his betrayal because Dumbledore apologized and admitted he had been wrong. But the effects are still there. People had died needlessly because of those secrets and lies. We see Harry come to that realization and begin to handle things in his own way rather than how Dumbledore instructed him. Dumbledore had instructed Harry not to tell anyone about the Horcruxes except for Ron and Hermione, but Harry realizes that wasn't the best way and eventually asks for help from others. He wouldn't have learned about the diadem if he had followed Dumbledore's instructions to the letter.

Harry gives Voldemort a chance to be a better person - to heal himself with remorse. He's seen what will become of Voldemort and he is capable of feeling sympathy for what he knows Voldemort has done to himself. He knows it doesn't have to be that way, but he also knows that Voldemort has to be the one to stop it. I think Harry also understood that it really was not possible for Voldemort to feel any kind of remorse for what he'd done, but he can walk away from that knowing that he gave Voldemort every chance to stop what he had started and his death truly was a last resort. Harry cold have kept all that to himself and used his advantage, but he understood that the ends do not always justify the means. By telling Voldemort what he knew, he put everything into Voldemort's hands and it comes down to Voldemort's choice rather than Harry's.

Possibly, but given Voldemort's character, I find that very unlikely. And I think Harry was completely realistic and knew that too.

I would say that Harry knew Voldemort wasn't capable of feeling remorse as well. However, it's not just about Voldemort there - it's also about Harry. Knowing that it wasn't likely doesn't mean that he shouldn't try.

Who would judge Harry if he had withheld that information from Voldemort?? Harry doesn't owe Voldemort a damn thing.

I would still blame Voldemort for instigating that final duel to the death even if Harry had withheld the information about the Elder Wand. Harry owes Voldemort nothing.

No, Harry didn't owe Voldemort anything. Harry owed it to himself. Harry would judge himself if he had withheld that information from Voldemort. He would never be able to say for certain that there was no other option or that he had done the right thing. Two wrongs do not make a right. For Harry, the ends do not always justify the means.

From the time Harry found out about the prophecy, he struggled with the knowledge that it was going to come down to kill or be killed. The idea of killing anyone - even Voldemort - disturbed him. It didn't matter how horrible Voldemort was, it didn't matter that Voldemort had coldly murdered people he cared about, and it didn't matter that he knew there wouldn't be any other choice because Voldemort wanted to kill him - he felt that would make him a murderer. He accepted the possibility of his own death, but the idea of having to kill someone never sat well with him. In telling Voldemort everything, Harry put the choice in Voldemort's hands. He chooses to use the disarming charm rather than the killing curse. He's not 100% certain that he's right about the Elder wand, but his conscious is clear. He can walk away from that knowing that he gave Voldemort every chance to do the right thing and the choice to kill was his. He can walk away from that knowing that he is not a murderer.

OK, but I just don't see how this relates to Harry and Voldemort or why Harry is supposed to be 'fair' to Voldemort. Harry is a decent person, so he's not the sort of guy to shoot his enemy in the back. But he has no moral obligation to make the final duel 'easier' for Voldemort, IMO.

But that's the thing - Harry didn't make the final duel easier for Voldemort. It would have been easier for Voldemort if Harry had said nothing and just pressed his advantage. He wouldn't have known what hit him. But Harry shakes things up and crumbles the foundation of what Voldemort believed. His appearance alone is shocking - he has, yet again, survived the killing curse. Referring to him as "Tom" reminds Voldemort that Harry knows where he came from and who he really is. Snape wasn't loyal to him and had been seeking revenge from the moment he killed Lily. Snape wasn't the true master of the Elder wand because Dumbledore had asked him to kill him. Harry is not afraid of him at all. Harry has broken his power and he can't really hurt anyone anymore - his spells are not binding. Instead of a triumphant defeat of this upstart boy with him being master of the most powerful wand in the world, his beliefs are shattered and he's facing a confident young man with a stick of wood that may or may not do what he wants. He is confused and afraid - but too arrogant to back down.

Yes: but Voldemort would not have walked away. :huh: He would never have ceased to pursue Harry until the boy was dead. So -- Dumbledore's part aside -- Harry has never had any choice about what to do, prophecy or no prophecy. Either he will be on the run from Voldy all his life, or he can try to defeat Voldemort, which, yes, means the possibility of killing the guy. All this would be true if Harry had never heard about the prophecy.

Of course it would. The choice was never Harry's because Voldemort would always be out there trying to kill him as long as he was alive. One - or both - of them had to die in order to end it. Harry knew that from the time he heard the prophecy. He had accepted the possibility of his own death when he was 15 years old.

That's what makes Dumbledore's machinations so questionable, IMO. He had already told Harry that it was going to come down to one of them killing the other. He had explained to Harry that there was no choice because Voldemort would never let it go. Harry had already accepted that and demonstrated that he had the strength to do what needed to be done. If that meant he was going to die - so be it.

As such, Dumbledore's reasoning to Snape for not telling Harry that he had to die doesn't hold water. It was never an issue of Harry finding the strength because he had already demonstrated that he had the strength to do whatever needed to be done. Just as Harry told Aberforth - he had known for a long time that he could die and was prepared for that. Dumbledore could have told Harry the truth and even told him that there was a possibility for him to survive the encounter because of the dual connections Voldemort had created between them.

That would not have changed what Harry did - Harry would have gone to Voldemort and accepted death either way. But that would have given Harry the ability to decide what the best way to go about it would be for himself. It wouldn't have been necessary for people to die needlessly in the first part of the battle because they refused to hand Harry over to Voldemort because Harry would have known that he had to go to Voldemort anyway. Harry could have charged Ron, Hermione, and Neville with finding the diadem and killing the snake and headed off to the forest before anyone died needlessly.

The question is whether or not that would have changed the nature of Harry's sacrifice. Would knowing that there was a possibility for him to survive - even though there was no guarantee - have prevented his sacrifice from protecting others? It appears that is what Dumbledore was attempting to accomplish by manipulating Harry the way he did. Dumbledore's plan was about breaking Voldemort's power as much as defeating him. Preventing him from being able to master the Elder wand, manipulating Harry so he sacrificed himself in a way that would protect others against Voldemort ... if everything had gone the way Dumbledore had planned, even if Harry had truly died and not had the option to return, Voldemort's would have been broken and pretty much anyone there at Hogwarts could have defeated him because his spells were not binding and the Elder wand would never work for him as it should.

Personally, I don't think it would have changed anything because there was no guarantee for Harry to survive. Dumbledore and Snape's manipulation of Harry was cruel because it was unnecessary and there were so many needless deaths - for which Harry will always feel responsible - because of it.

As arithmancer says ... Voldemort started this whole danged thing and basically engineered his own destruction at Harry's hands.

Well, the irony of it was that Voldemort engineered his own destruction at his own hands. Harry's disarming charm wasn't going to kill him after all. ;)

The conversation as a whole is very strange because Harry does so much backtracking and double talk you can't really tell what he's trying to say there. His complete disregard of their actions is insulting his parents, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, the entire Weasley family, Neville, Luna, and everyone else who was actually brave enough to stand up to Voldemort and fight him. It's really sad that none of the Potter or Weasley children appear to know what happened or how brave those people were.
How on earth do you know that? I don't see anything in the canon that proves those others weren't honored by the Weasley or Potter children. It's just at that moment Harry is talking about Albus Severus's namesakes, who were completely connected to Hogwarts where they were Headmasters. Chances are eventually Al will actually see their portraits as well, so he needed to know about them. That's the context of the conversation. JMO

Albus Severus isn't named for all those other people. I'm sure James Sirius and Lily Luna know about their namesakes as well. But we can't tell just from the Epilogue.

There's just something very wrong about Harry in the epilogue - it's like he's turned into a politician.
I think Harry has just turned into a father. :)

Harry gives Voldemort a chance to be a better person - to heal himself with remorse. He's seen what will become of Voldemort and he is capable of feeling sympathy for what he knows Voldemort has done to himself. He knows it doesn't have to be that way, but he also knows that Voldemort has to be the one to stop it. I think Harry also understood that it really was not possible for Voldemort to feel any kind of remorse for what he'd done, but he can walk away from that knowing that he gave Voldemort every chance to stop what he had started and his death truly was a last resort. Harry cold have kept all that to himself and used his advantage, but he understood that the ends do not always justify the means. By telling Voldemort what he knew, he put everything into Voldemort's hands and it comes down to Voldemort's choice rather than Harry's.

That's an important factor in giving Voldemort all the information -whether one views it as genuinely giving him a chance for remorse or taunting- what happens is Voldemort's decision and Harry can have a clear conscience in that regard.

As such, Dumbledore's reasoning to Snape for not telling Harry that he had to die doesn't hold water. It was never an issue of Harry finding the strength because he had already demonstrated that he had the strength to do whatever needed to be done. Just as Harry told Aberforth - he had known for a long time that he could die and was prepared for that. Dumbledore could have told Harry the truth and even told him that there was a possibility for him to survive the encounter because of the dual connections Voldemort had created between them.

Perhaps, aside from finding the strength to die, Dumbledore was worried how the thought of knowing he had part of Voldemort's soul within him and had to continue with that knowledge until all the Horcruxes were gone would affect Harry. That would be the heavier part of the burden than having to die if Harry had a long period of time such as the Horcrux hunt to dwell on it, imo. I think the only reason he didn't dwell on that in The Forest Again was because his death was the more immediate concern.

The question is whether or not that would have changed the nature of Harry's sacrifice. Would knowing that there was a possibility for him to survive - even though there was no guarantee - have prevented his sacrifice from protecting others? It appears that is what Dumbledore was attempting to accomplish by manipulating Harry the way he did. Dumbledore's plan was about breaking Voldemort's power as much as defeating him. Preventing him from being able to master the Elder wand, manipulating Harry so he sacrificed himself in a way that would protect others against Voldemort ... if everything had gone the way Dumbledore had planned, even if Harry had truly died and not had the option to return, Voldemort's would have been broken and pretty much anyone there at Hogwarts could have defeated him because his spells were not binding and the Elder wand would never work for him as it should.

Personally, I don't think it would have changed anything because there was no guarantee for Harry to survive. Dumbledore and Snape's manipulation of Harry was cruel because it was unnecessary and there were so many needless deaths - for which Harry will always feel responsible - because of it.


I believe it would have changed the nature of Harry's sacrifice if he had known there was a possibility to survive. Yes, there was no guarantee he'd survive, but there was a possibility - that way, it would have been a risk rather than a sacrifice, imo. A pretty huge risk, but still a risk moreso than a sacrifice.

That's an important factor in giving Voldemort all the information -whether one views it as genuinely giving him a chance for remorse or taunting- what happens is Voldemort's decision and Harry can have a clear conscience in that regard.

Exactly. :agree:

Perhaps, aside from finding the strength to die, Dumbledore was worried how the thought of knowing he had part of Voldemort's soul within him and had to continue with that knowledge until all the Horcruxes were gone would affect Harry. That would be the heavier part of the burden than having to die if Harry had a long period of time such as the Horcrux hunt to dwell on it, imo. I think the only reason he didn't dwell on that in The Forest Again was because his death was the more immediate concern.

Honestly, I think not knowing why there was such a strong connection between him and Voldemort was the bigger burden for Harry. Knowing why would have helped him understand it better, IMO.

In any case, that is not the reasoning that Dumbledore presents - he tells Snape that Harry wouldn't be able to find the strength to do it if he was told too soon. That was wrong because Harry demonstrated that he had the strength to do that when he was 11 years old and he knew from the time he was 15 that it was going to come down to one - or both - of them being killed.

I think knowing that he had a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of him made it easier for Harry to make that decision because there was no other way to destroy it. And I don't think that would change if Harry had been told about all of that when Dumbledore told him about the prophecy or even when he told him about the Horcruxes. If Harry had known about it earlier, he could have gone to Voldemort sooner and prevented a lot of people from dying needlessly, IMO.

I believe it would have changed the nature of Harry's sacrifice if he had known there was a possibility to survive. Yes, there was no guarantee he'd survive, but there was a possibility - that way, it would have been a risk rather than a sacrifice, imo. A pretty huge risk, but still a risk moreso than a sacrifice.

That is possible. However, I do think Harry's frame of mind is significant there and it seems likely that Harry would have been skeptical about the prospect of surviving. It was not the same as the situation when he was a baby and the killing curse rebounded - leaving him alive. Nor was it the same as the other times he had managed to escape by dodging - or even when Dumbledore threw things in the path of it to shield him. It wasn't about escaping death this time - it was about dying. Harry was facing a situation in which he had to die in order for that piece of soul to be destroyed.

Dumbledore's belief that Harry could survive was based on their being an afterlife - essentially that Harry would die, go to "the other side", and get a choice as to whether to return to life or stay dead and move on. As we see in Godric's Hollow, Harry didn't believe in any of that. He saw death as the end. He accepted death as a natural part of life, but he didn't believe there was anything beyond death. So I think Harry would have been very skeptical about his prospects for surviving.

However, the other factor there is that this was also completely unnecessary. It was a nice bonus that everyone was protected against Voldemort, but not necessary for Voldemort to be defeated. With all the Horcruxes destroyed and Voldemort being unable to master the Elder wand, the threat he presented was diminished greatly and he could be killed by anyone. The prophecy never meant that Harry had to be the one to kill Voldemort - it only meant that Harry had to die in order for Voldemort to be killed. Dumbledore knew that so his manipulation of Harry in regards to how he died was unnecessary and caused a lot of people to die needlessly, IMO.

Of course, Dumbledore could have been honest with Harry about what needed to be done without telling him about his speculation that Harry could survive as well. It was only speculation and he wasn't completely certain he was right. I would still find that a bit disturbing - mostly because I believe honesty is always best - but I think that would have been a better option that deliberately lying to Harry and withholding important information that he needed to know.

I think knowing that he had a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of him made it easier for Harry to make that decision because there was no other way to destroy it. And I don't think that would change if Harry had been told about all of that when Dumbledore told him about the prophecy or even when he told him about the Horcruxes. If Harry had known about it earlier, he could have gone to Voldemort sooner and prevented a lot of people from dying needlessly, IMO.

I think it was easier once he found out because he wasn't thinking about the Horcrux, he was thinking about his impending death -he had really only about half an hour to dwell on any of it. I don't think it'd be quite the same if he'd had to spend an indeterminate amount of time hunting Horcruxes, dwelling on this. Knowing that a piece of Voldemort's soul was kept safe in him would have been more disturbing and difficult to take than the knowledge that he had to die because of it, imo. Perhaps that's what Dumbledore felt he didn't mightn't have the strength to deal with, as Harry had certainly shown he had the strength to face death.

That is possible. However, I do think Harry's frame of mind is significant there and it seems likely that Harry would have been skeptical about the prospect of surviving. It was not the same as the situation when he was a baby and the killing curse rebounded - leaving him alive. Nor was it the same as the other times he had managed to escape by dodging - or even when Dumbledore threw things in the path of it to shield him. It wasn't about escaping death this time - it was about dying. Harry was facing a situation in which he had to die in order for that piece of soul to be destroyed.

I agree, he would have been skeptical but he would have known it was a possibility, which would make it a risk, rather than a sacrifice, imo. A massive risk, which he would have expected to end in death, but with even a tiny possibility of surviving.

Dumbledore's belief that Harry could survive was based on their being an afterlife - essentially that Harry would die, go to "the other side", and get a choice as to whether to return to life or stay dead and move on. As we see in Godric's Hollow, Harry didn't believe in any of that. He saw death as the end. He accepted death as a natural part of life, but he didn't believe there was anything beyond death. So I think Harry would have been very skeptical about his prospects for surviving.

Although Harry didn't believe in an afterlife in Godric's Hollow, he reflects that he wasn't really fetching his loved ones, they were fetching him as he walks towards Voldemort. To me, that suggests he believes in an afterlife at this point, or at least considers it a possibility.

I think Harry's loyalty to those he loved was his most important trait, because it gave him the strength to die for them. Of course all of the traits above had a part in it.

I agree. What stands out to me with Harry's conversation with little Al is that he is focusing on Gryffindor traits - specifically bravery. Little Al is worried about being sorted in Slytherin and Harry chooses to comfort him - not by telling him that there's nothing wrong with being ambitious or cunning, but by telling him that he could still be brave.

And by telling him that he could be brave in Slytherin too, like another Slytherin Harry knew IMO.

The conversation as a whole is very strange because Harry does so much backtracking and double talk you can't really tell what he's trying to say there. His complete disregard of their actions is insulting his parents, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, the entire Weasley family, Neville, Luna, and everyone else who was actually brave enough to stand up to Voldemort and fight him. It's really sad that none of the Potter or Weasley children appear to know what happened or how brave those people were. He tells little Al that it doesn't matter to him if he gets sorted into Slytherin - and then tells him how to get out of it so it's guaranteed that he will not be sorted into Slytherin. Harry's not giving a straight answer about anything. There's just something very wrong about Harry in the epilogue - it's like he's turned into a politician. :scared:

I found the conversation nice. I thought Harry was telling Al that Slytherin was not evil; it was the House of people like Snape and so Al should never be afraid of being sorted into that house.

I don't think for a second Harry was dissing his parents and others. By saying Snape was the bravest man he ever knew, he was not insulting anyone IMO. He was stating a simple fact. That in Harry's opinion Snape was indeed the bravest man he knew. I agree with Harry of course and I can totally see why he said that. :)

Harry tells Al the way to get out of being sorted in Slytherin, but personally I think Harry would be very proud, if Al was sorted into Slytherin. That would go a long way in boosting House Unity generally and personally it would show that Al Severus was having the courage to accept where the Hat would place him (if indeed it would place him in Slytherin); I think Harry would conclude Al Severus was developing into a brave character, like another one Harry knew and Al Severus was named after IMO.

The conversation as a whole is very strange because Harry does so much backtracking and double talk you can't really tell what he's trying to say there. His complete disregard of their actions is insulting his parents, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, the entire Weasley family, Neville, Luna, and everyone else who was actually brave enough to stand up to Voldemort and fight him. It's really sad that none of the Potter or Weasley children appear to know what happened or how brave those people were.

Harry doesn't consider the others as cowards, he only considers that Snape was the bravest of them. (And I wholeheartedly agree :D) And, BTW, he probably doesn't think about his parents, as he didn't really know them.

Ad we can see Harry talking tho the youngest of his children; probably the elder know a lot more about the past.

By calling someone the bravest man he ever knew, Harry wasn't implying that the others weren't brave, since he only said the bravest. In my opinion, he was simply acknowledging that Snape, a Slytherin, had done some of the most courageous acts throughout the war, risking his life each and every day as a double agent, to assuage Al's fears about whether or not being sorted into Slytherin would be a negative judgment upon his character.

Harry doesn't consider the others as cowards, he only considers that Snape was the bravest of them. (And I wholeheartedly agree :D) And, BTW, he probably doesn't think about his parents, as he didn't really know them.

Ad we can see Harry talking tho the youngest of his children; probably the elder know a lot more about the past.

I thought Al was the middle one, isn't Lily the daughter younger? I think Harry got to know his parents as well as might be expected. I don't know about talking to his children about the past. People can be funny abpout traumatic events. We see that all the children don't really know why Harry is such a point of interest. How many people on this forum hand on heart know what their parents did when young? My father served in North Africa during the war. He would never speak about Tobruk and he was on the edge of the action. All he did say was that the explosions from the guns could be seen quite a distance away. That was it, 3 years of his life and he never spoke about it.

His complete disregard of their actions is insulting his parents, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, the entire Weasley family, Neville, Luna, and everyone else who was actually brave enough to stand up to Voldemort and fight him.

First, I think that Harry is of the opinion that Snape would have had the courage to actually stand up to Voldemort and fight him. But this is not what motivates Harry to consider Snape "the bravest man I ever knew", since as you correctly point out, Harry knew many men (and women) who showed that same sort of courage.

Harry himself has that type of courage. We see him tell Albus in HBP that if it comes to this in the end, he will go down fighting (as just one example of Harry exhibiting this kind of courage, there are many and I am sure you can think of others!)

But, in "The Forest Again", Harry realizes that he will need to have a different kind of courage. The courage to NOT stand up and fight Voldemort. To just go, and leave his friends, his beloved, and his whole life behind, and face Voldemort and NOT fight him.

As he thinks to himself:

If only he could have died on that summer's night when he had left number four, Privet Drive, for the last time,l when the noble phoenix-feather wand had saved him! If he could only have died like Hedwig, so quickly he would not have known it had happened! Or if he could have launched himself in front of a wand to save someone he loved...He envied even his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery.

It is this same sort of courage, I believe, that Harry credits Snape with. He saw Snape display it when he witnessed Snape's murder, and he understands in the end, that this was what Snape's role as a spy required him to do over and over. And this is why he believes what he tells Albus Severus, and why it does not, in his mind, detract from anyone else. Harry has done both, and he knows which he found hardest.

But, in "The Forest Again", Harry realizes that he will need to have a different kind of courage. The courage to NOT stand up and fight Voldemort. To just go, and leave his friends, his beloved, and his whole life behind, and face Voldemort and NOT fight him.

As he thinks to himself:

If only he could have died on that summer's night when he had left numver four, Privet Drive, for the last time,l when the noble phoenix-freather wand had saved him! If he coul do nly have died like Hedwig, so quickly he would not have known it had happened! Or if he could have launched himself in front of a wand to save someone he loved...He envied even his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery.

It is this same sort of courage, I believe, that Harry credits Snape with. He saw Snape display it when he witnessed Snape's murder, and he understands in the end, that this was what Snape's role as a spy required him to do over and over. And this is why he believes what he tells Albus Severus, and why it does not, in his mind, detract from anyone else. Harry has done both, and he knows which he found hardest.

Thanks, arithmancer. I completely agree with this.

Severus Snape had to walk calmly, straight into danger the night Voldemort regained his body - not knowing what the outcome would be. He had to walk calmly, straight into danger every time he met with Voldemort. And when Voldemort was about to murder him, he had to master his fear and accept that there was nothing he could do except protect the secrets from Voldemort that were given to him to protect.

It is actually quite remarkable that he maintained his Occlumency skills against Voldemort even in the face of certain death, and even after Nagini bit him.

All of that does, as you indicated, take a very different and difficult type of courage. It's one thing to throw yourself into battle. It's quite another to walk calmly into the face of death and stay focused and true to your mission up to the moment of death.

Harry, knowing what it was to walk into death himself, is uniquely able to acknowledge that type of bravery. And his children's names unite all the people he considered most important in his own life. He honored his father, his godfather, his mother, his friend Luna, and the Headmasters Albus and Severus. This is decidedly not "political." Nobody names children for non-relatives they do not honor and respect.

Harry wanted the names Albus and Severus to be part of his family. This is one of the highest honors he could give those men.

His complete disregard of their actions is insulting his parents, Sirius, Lupin, Tonks, the entire Weasley family, Neville, Luna, and everyone else who was actually brave enough to stand up to Voldemort and fight him.

:hmm: I highly doubt that was Rowling's intention when she wrote this. :)

It's really sad that none of the Potter or Weasley children appear to know what happened or how brave those people were.

Well, if that really was the case, it would have been the decision of Harry and Ginny, Ron and Hermione, not to tell their kids too much about the war. War brings traumatic memories. But, in all honesty, it stretches my credulity that none of the Potter or Weasley kids would have known. Of course they would have known, IMO. They would have known all about the deaths of their cousin Teddy's parents, for starters.

There's just something very wrong about Harry in the epilogue - it's like he's turned into a politician. :scared:

I didn't see that at all. :) To me Harry was completely Harry in the Epilogue. Mature, compassionate, and an excellent, loving father.

Besides, as others have repeatedly said, Snape's bravery went beyond participation on the battlefield, and so Harry acknowledged that because he knew how utterly unique his type of bravery was from personal experiences. Calling someone the bravest man, not the only brave man, doesn't mean that his friends weren't brave in their own ways.

But, in "The Forest Again", Harry realizes that he will need to have a different kind of courage. The courage to NOT stand up and fight Voldemort. To just go, and leave his friends, his beloved, and his whole life behind, and face Voldemort and NOT fight him.

As he thinks to himself:

If only he could have died on that summer's night when he had left numver four, Privet Drive, for the last time,l when the noble phoenix-freather wand had saved him! If he coul do nly have died like Hedwig, so quickly he would not have known it had happened! Or if he could have launched himself in front of a wand to save someone he loved...He envied even his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery.

It is this same sort of courage, I believe, that Harry credits Snape with. He saw Snape display it when he witnessed Snape's murder, and he understands in the end, that this was what Snape's role as a spy required him to do over and over. And this is why he believes what he tells Albus Severus, and why it does not, in his mind, detract from anyone else. Harry has done both, and he knows which he found hardest.

Yes. *wipes a tear* :huggles:

Voldemort would have never surrendered to the Ministry, In my opinion. He was far too proud for that, and I'd also bet that his good senses were utterly dominated by the sadistic excitement of having Harry so close to him --- and, as he thought, death. We know that Voldemort was tactical, yes, but he would have scoffed at the idea of being thrown in prison like a common thug.

From the way Harry addressed Voldemort (it seemed snarky, IMO), he was using his advantages in order to corner the enemy. Voldemort most likely took them as battle words and provocations. Harry was just telling him about the Elder Wand in order to batter his confidence and say, in the clearest way possible, You are mortal now, and you will die if this continues. It was never about being fair, because Harry saw Voldemort's soul with Dumbledore and knew that he was a being beyond saving. All that was left for him now had to be death.

I think Harry knew Voldemort would never surrender, and that, ultimately, he would die. I think after his chat with Dumbledore in King's Cross, he really understood what would happen to Voldemort after his death. That his soul would be beyond repair and he felt sorry for him.

I think this shows Harry's pure soul better than anything else in the whole series. He felt sorry for Voldemort. He was willing to give Voldemort a chance to save his soul if he was remorseful, even after all the evil that he had done to Harry and the people he cared for. Harry knew that the only way Voldemorts soul could be repaired was if he showed "true remorse" which I believe Dumbledore told him was the only way to repair a soul once it had been torn apart.

I don't think Harry expected it to work, but I also don't think Harry would've killed him either. If Voldemort had cast any other spell than AK, he may not have even died, just been disarmed and captured. Maybe he would've been sentenced to death later on, but I don't think Harry would've killed him after knowing what happens to souls that are ripped apart.

From Things that were too easy / convenient in the book/s (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109781&page=41):
That's one thing I never really understood about Harry, his somewhat nonchalant approach to the magic world. I mean, on one hand, he's sometimes amazed by it, (especially the first story) but on the other, his homework and studies nonetheless strike him as tedious and dull, as if he were learning math or the Nitrogen cycle or something mundane like that.
Man, take me as an 11 year old, and tell me I'm a real wizard, and shove me in that universe, and I'd be eating up everything I could find, just like Hermione. That's motivation, lol.
In fact, that's the biggest difference between Harry and Hermione, actually - unlike Ron, they both grow up in the muggle word, totally ignorant of the existence of magic until 10 or 11.. I can see why Hermione would be so eager to learn.
Heck, I remember wanting to be a wizard or witch way back when I was 10 or 11, but back then, that was due to watching "Bewitched" and "Dream of Jeanie", shows like that, because it was the very early '70s!
I don't get quite Harry though. Then again, being older now, I value education and knowledge and history much more than I did when I was younger.
So it's not really a convenience issue, but it's still a bit puzzling to me.
I brought this discussion to Harry's character analysis because I also wonder about Harry's investment in his education at Hogwarts. As you say, he and Hermione (and other Muggle-borns) are put in very similar situations: they do not know anything about the magical world until they receive their Hogwarts letters.

However, Hermione's take on education and Harry's take is a perfect illustration of character traits overriding, in many cases, shared experiences. I think Hermione's and Harry's attitude towards their education at Hogwarts would be very similar to their attitude toward Muggle schooling: I expect Hermione would be a perfectionist and very involved in getting good grades, while Harry was not nearly as enthralled by school. So, Hermione's basic character trait continues (if we make that assumption about her Muggle education) upon entering the magical world, perhaps heightened because of the newness and interest of magic. I see Harry similarly: his investment in education was increased when he entered Hogwarts. However, that does not change his basic character traits and priorities. Even with the awesomeness of Hogwarts and magic, Harry still does not consider education remotely as highly as Hermione does.

I think Harry's apparent "nonchalance" towards magical education is reinforced by an early best friend in Ron. Ron grew up in this magical world, so he is not as enthralled by Hogwarts and the magic of it as Harry and Hermione are: it is normal for Ron. Therefore, Ron "slacks off" in school, just like we Muggles might have done with our early education (and, I think, how Harry acted in his Muggle education). Now, I think Harry was highly influenced by Ron here. Harry immediately befriended Ron, so I think Harry felt much more "in place" in the Wizarding World than, say, Hermione because he had Ron - a key to the magical world and magic in general. Therefore, I do not find it odd that Harry takes a "normal," occasionally uninterested approach to his classes. Firstly, it was just part of his character and priorities, and, secondly, he had Ron to help him adapt and normalize Hogwarts fairly quickly (compared to Hermione who had no really good friend to enter Hogwarts with, until she befriended Harry and Ron).

I agree. Harry was able to defeat Voldemort because of the efforts of Dumbledore and Snape and of course others led by Dumbledore who helped Harry stand before Voldemort in the Final Battle.

True in fact Harry's part was fairly easy.In fact to be honest i found him the most unsympathetic hero i ever read about.I think the older people are the nicest persons in the series.And the girls come off better in general then the guys which shows the story was written by a woman i think.
Harry acts nasty and angry so often I would have him shut up in St. Mungos.
It is just that Voldemort is truly evil that makes you hope Harry wins and cause no one else can.

True in fact Harry's part was fairly easy.In fact to be honest i found him the most unsympathetic hero i ever read about.I think the older people are the nicest persons in the series.And the girls come off better in general then the guys which shows the story was written by a woman i think.
Harry acts nasty and angry so often I would have him shut up in St. Mungos.
It is just that Voldemort is truly evil that makes you hope Harry wins and cause no one else can.

I feel exactly the same way about Harry. I appreciate him as a character, but I would never want to associate with a person like him in real life. I understand why he's angry all the time, someone's trying to kill him for most of his life and weird stuff is always happening to him, but he's just so unpleasant sometimes that I wonder how the other two put up with him. That is not to say he has no good qualities of course.

True in fact Harry's part was fairly easy.In fact to be honest i found him the most unsympathetic hero i ever read about.I think the older people are the nicest persons in the series.And the girls come off better in general then the guys which shows the story was written by a woman i think.
Harry acts nasty and angry so often I would have him shut up in St. Mungos.
It is just that Voldemort is truly evil that makes you hope Harry wins and cause no one else can.

I feel exactly the same way about Harry. I appreciate him as a character, but I would never want to associate with a person like him in real life. I understand why he's angry all the time, someone's trying to kill him for most of his life and weird stuff is always happening to him, but he's just so unpleasant sometimes that I wonder how the other two put up with him. That is not to say he has no good qualities of course.

Hmm. I do understand where both of you are coming from here, but I don't agree with your statements. I find Harry to be exceptionally likable, almost incredibly unselfish, and an exemplary friend. I don't have all that much time to elaborate, but I see his character as surprisingly untouched by the awful things that have happened to him, and find myself admiring his choices more and more as the series progresses. As for Hermione and Ron being admirable for "putting up with" him, I find the opposite to be true; Ron's constantly resurfacing jealousy and resentment of Harry's fame, and his and Hermione's incessant sniping at one another leads me to believe that out of the three of them, it's Harry who is long-suffering, and Hermione and Ron who are to blame for any strain on the Trio's relationship. Sure, Harry's temper gets the better of him at times, but considering what he's gone though, it wouldn't be realistic for him to be sweet and pleasant all the time- although he is, more than I would say he should be expected to be considering the circumstances. :)

True in fact Harry's part was fairly easy.

Snape and Dumbledore got to choose whether they fought. Harry never had a choice, he was marked for this before he was born, had his parents murdered, was hunted throughout his childhood and actually had to die to end this threat.

Harry's part to play was critical and much more difficult than either Snape's or Dumbledore's because he was a child who never had the option to do anything else.

I see Harry as somewhere in between the extremes of one of the nastiest, angriest heroes in the history of fiction and one of the most incredibly likable humans in the history of the human race. :shrug:

Harry has serious anger issues. As a reader, I find him extremely difficult to be around for much of OotP, almost all of HBP, and parts of DH.

But he grows as a character, ends up making good choices, re-evaluates a lot of his anger, becomes selfless to the point of willingly laying down his life, and appears to have become a very good father and a very good man by the time of the Epilogue.

I think the real test is how he deals with Snape's memories. He does not let 7 years of hating Snape get in the way of what those memories tell him. As soon as he knows the truth, he begins to think differently - which is evident from his walk into the Forest and his final exchange with Voldemort. And of course, he continues to think differently, to the point of honoring his former "nemesis" by naming his child after him.

The fact that Harry can re-evaluate, lay down his pride, put aside his hatred, and see things differently shows that he's hardly a candidate for St. Mungo's, as one poster indicated. He's not locked in to one single position that he cannot escape from. He is capable of change and growth, and (of course) tremendous heroism.

But he grows as a character, ends up making good choices, re-evaluates a lot of his anger, becomes selfless to the point of willingly laying down his life, and appears to have become a very good father and a very good man by the time of the Epilogue.

I think the real test is how he deals with Snape's memories. He does not let 7 years of hating Snape get in the way of what those memories tell him. As soon as he knows the truth, he begins to think differently - which is evident from his walk into the Forest and his final exchange with Voldemort. And of course, he continues to think differently, to the point of honoring his former "nemesis" by naming his child after him.

The fact that Harry can re-evaluate, lay down his pride, put aside his hatred, and see things differently shows that he's hardly a candidate for St. Mungo's, as one poster indicated. He's not locked in to one single position that he cannot escape from. He is capable of change and growth, and (of course) tremendous heroism.

That is in the epilogue as you said but to get there you get a lot of moments in my view someone should have given him a kick in the rear end.He is not the only one btw the bickering of the others got me annoyed too at a certain moment.Anyway he gets though it all with a lot of help and luck.He has friends who at least in the beginning see more in him then he does in them.The one big thing that speaks in his favour is his courage.

Harry has serious anger issues. As a reader, I find him extremely difficult to be around for much of OotP, almost all of HBP, and parts of DH.

I have tremendous sympathy with Harry's anger issues. It was about time Harry got angry, in the series, IMO -- what with his parents being murdered, his abuse at the hands of his carers, a psychotic mass murderer out to get him and a corrupt government official out to frame him. :yuhup: Oh, and let's throw a little torture in (at Umbridge's hands). He's a fifteen year old kid. Yes, he was going to get angry.

Harry's anger issues are also connected with his experiences of abandonment and rejection. As an adoptee, I recognise these all too well.

There are many orphan heroes in literature, it's a classic trope. Harry is firmly in that tradition. His creator makes him very far from perfect: although he's actually less damaged than he ought to be, given his awful childhood, so JKR's portrayal of him -- he is a pretty normal kid -- is not entirely realistic. But Harry's characterisation serves the purposes of her story. :cool:

When I reread OotP, it reminded me of the angry teenager I'd been. I found myself identifying a lot with the teenage angst of Rowling's young witches and wizards ... Harry's most of all.

I felt like smashing up Dumbledore's office too. :yuhup:

I think the real test is how he deals with Snape's memories. He does not let 7 years of hating Snape get in the way of what those memories tell him. As soon as he knows the truth, he begins to think differently - which is evident from his walk into the Forest and his final exchange with Voldemort. And of course, he continues to think differently, to the point of honoring his former "nemesis" by naming his child after him.

:agree:

IMO, Harry's anger in OotP was surprising to most people (myself included) because in all the previous books, Harry didn't have many outbursts like that, and when he did, it was in grave situations. Overall, he seemed mostly a mild-mannered kid. I'd never suspected that Harry would ever shout at Ron and Hermione the way he did because I thought I knew what Harry was like.
At 14, I didn't do much thinking about why he was angry or what that might mean for his character. Needless to say, I've since thought about it. :lol:

We often go on about Harry being the lens through which we view the WW and its people, but Harry himself is also growing up and changing. The anger he feels in OotP serves, IMO, to add more humanity to him and to show how not only is the world changing around him, he's also changing and beginning to shoulder responsibilities most people his age couldn't dream of tackling. I would heartily disagree, therefore, that Harry's unsympathetic. I think Harry's flawed, definitely, but not only are his flaws relatively minor, but they also make him much more human.

I have tremendous sympathy with Harry's anger issues. It was about time Harry got angry, in the series, IMO -- what with his parents being murdered, his abuse at the hands of his carers, a psychotic mass murderer out to get him and a corrupt government official out to frame him. :yuhup: Oh, and let's throw a little torture in (at Umbridge's hands). He's a fifteen year old kid. Yes, he was going to get angry.

I completely agree with this. Harry's "anger issues" didn't bother me at all in OotP, considering what he went through. In one night, he saw a kid murdered right in front of his face, had his arm cut open, and his own blood used to resurrect the thing that killed his parents. I'm sorry, but "traumatizing" seems like a bit of an understatement here. He then spent the next few weeks kept in the dark about everything that was happening, with no one giving him answers. Who wouldn't be very frustrated by all of that?

So, while it was a bit of a surprise at first, I thought Harry blowing up at Ron and Hermione at Grimmauld Place made perfect sense. No, it wasn't right for him to take it out on his friends, but it is quite understandable.

Plus, he was 15. I think that in itself can causes anger issues. :p

I completely agree with this. Harry's "anger issues" didn't bother me at all in OotP, considering what he went through. In one night, he saw a kid murdered right in front of his face, had his arm cut open, and his own blood used to resurrect the thing that killed his parents. I'm sorry, but "traumatizing" seems like a bit of an understatement here. He then spent the next few weeks kept in the dark about everything that was happening, with no one giving him answers. Who wouldn't be very frustrated by all of that?

Well, I didn't say I was unsympathetic with Harry's anger issues in OotP. I said they made him difficult for me to be around at times. I was trying to strike a balance between the people who were writing, essentially, that Harry's a complete nutcase and those who were writing that Harry's a faultless saint.

It's only in HBP that I have really serious problems with Harry's anger. I understand that he's angry over Sirius' death, but he becomes murderously angry, and at the wrong person, wishing that Snape would literally die because of the big blow-up at Grimmauld Place that was literally 20 years coming - for both Severus and Sirius. Sirius died because Dumbledore put Harry at arm's length and Harry refused to practice Occlumency, but Harry insists on blaming his death on an argument that goes back much longer than Harry has even been alive. It's just so much easier to blame someone he already hates than it is to recognize that he and Dumbledore bear most of the blame for what happened at the Department of Mysteries. But Harry is able to overcome all that anger and hatred in the end... and that, for me, makes him a great hero, and a great man.

Harry is one of my top three favorite characters in the series. But he does have serious flaws to overcome. It's in overcoming those flaws that he becomes truly admirable, imo.

It's only in HBP that I have really serious problems with Harry's anger.

:agree: I see what you mean here. Harry's anger toward Snape is very extreme. Every time I reread the part where Harry says he's wishing for another DADA teacher death, I want to smack the brat. :grumble:

I think Harry hadn't really dealt well with his grief over Sirius' death and is channeling those feelings into something other than guilt and pain-- namely, anger-- in order to soften the blow for himself and not process the lessons DD tried to impart to him at the end of OotP-- since they require him to see Sirius as a flawed character and accept his own part in the tragedy. IMO, Harry's experiences in DH help him get over it. He becomes more aware of Sirius' character as a whole and absorbs with DD (and later Hermione and his own conscience) tells him. He comes to accept and love Sirius, warts and all, and understand that he can only learn from his own mistakes.


Personally, Harry's anger in HBP doesn't quite bother me too much, though: there's a reason for it, a reason involving a very real pain Harry's feeling. I actually find Harry's thoughtless use of the Prince's spells in the same book a much bigger cause for concern. There's never any indication that Crabbe or Filch did anything to elicit being hexed (in fact, the book specifically says Filch was "unsuspecting"). The casual hexing strikes me as much more of a recipe for disaster than a fit of provoked anger. Hubris in a literary character is traditionally a big red flag. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Icons-mini-flag_red.gif I don't know if his near killing of Draco had much of an affect on him here. Hopefully it did, but Draco at least was posing a danger, unlike the other two.

Harry is one of my top three favorite characters in the series. But he does have serious flaws to overcome. It's in overcoming those flaws that he becomes truly admirable, imo.

:clap:
I love Harry-- no surprise there, I grew up with the books. :lol:
I find him one of the most admirable characters in the series. Thinking of what he ultimately overcomes-- and I'm talking within himself, not so much the flashy fighting :yuhup:-- often brings me to tears. :)

Well, I didn't say I was unsympathetic with Harry's anger issues in OotP. I said they made him difficult for me to be around at times. I was trying to strike a balance between the people who were writing, essentially, that Harry's a complete nutcase and those who were writing that Harry's a faultless saint.

I don't think Harry is a faultless saint. I think most of his outbursts are understandable. That doesn't mean they are morally right. It just means he is a flawed human being in extraordinary circumstances.


It's only in HBP that I have really serious problems with Harry's anger. I understand that he's angry over Sirius' death, but he becomes murderously angry, and at the wrong person, wishing that Snape would literally die because of the big blow-up at Grimmauld Place that was literally 20 years coming - for both Severus and Sirius. Sirius died because Dumbledore put Harry at arm's length and Harry refused to practice Occlumency, but Harry insists on blaming his death on an argument that goes back much longer than Harry has even been alive. It's just so much easier to blame someone he already hates than it is to recognize that he and Dumbledore bear most of the blame for what happened at the Department of Mysteries. But Harry is able to overcome all that anger and hatred in the end... and that, for me, makes him a great hero, and a great man.


I find that in grief, people often (not always) try to find someone to blame for the death of their loved one. It isn't always rational- in fact, it is often quite irrational. I see this as entirely human. I think it is difficult to direct your anger or guilt at something intangible, like a war (or a disease as the case may be), and even more difficult to direct it at yourself or the person you lost. That's why people find scapegoats in their enemies (which is what Harry did), doctors, politicians and sometimes in entire races of people.

I think Harry did blame himself for Sirius's death, even in HBP. Unfortunately, he couldn't acknowledge that guilt on a conscious level, because he wasn't emotionally ready to do so. That's why, IMO, he directed his guilt at Snape.

:agree: I see what you mean here. Harry's anger toward Snape is very extreme. Every time I reread the part where Harry says he's wishing for another DADA teacher death, I want to smack the brat. :grumble:

Yes, that. :agree:

I think Harry hadn't really dealt well with his grief over Sirius' death and is channeling those feelings into something other than guilt and pain-- namely, anger-- in order to soften the blow for himself and not process the lessons DD tried to impart to him at the end of OotP-- since they require him to see Sirius as a flawed character and accept his own part in the tragedy.

:agree: I completely agree with this. And it's interesting that Harry starts screaming when Dumbledore tells him that Sirius underestimated what kind of foe Kreacher could be if mistreated. Harry does not want to hear it. He just wants to blame Snape because it's a lot easier than looking at Sirius' part or his own. If only Harry had taken a lesson from Dumbledore in that scene and taken a look at the blame he himself bore.

IMO, Harry's experiences in DH help him get over it. He becomes more aware of Sirius' character as a whole and absorbs with DD (and later Hermione and his own conscience) tells him. He comes to accept and love Sirius, warts and all, and understand that he can only learn from his own mistakes.

:agree: Agree again. ;) Harry has to grapple with all he never knew about Dumbledore and decide whether or not to trust and forgive him. He has to listen to Kreacher's tale and come to recognize that a Death Eater can turn away from the darkness and do something heroic. He learns that the house elf was not inherently a villain, and even the "good Gryffindor brother" (Sirius) had flaws.

In going through all these experiences, Harry is primed for Snape's memories. He has already let go of so many illusions and falsehoods that he can finally face the truth and accept it and forgive the past.

Personally, Harry's anger in HBP doesn't quite bother me too much, though: there's a reason for it, a reason involving a very real pain Harry's feeling.

I agree. But I generally want to smack him upside the head when he displaces it! Just like I want to smack Snape upside the head when he displaces his anger at James onto Harry. ;)

I actually find Harry's thoughtless use of the Prince's spells in the same book a much bigger cause for concern. There's never any indication that Crabbe or Filch did anything to elicit being hexed (in fact, the book specifically says Filch was "unsuspecting"). The casual hexing strikes me as much more of a recipe for disaster than a fit of provoked anger. Hubris in a literary character is traditionally a big red flag. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Icons-mini-flag_red.gif

Now you're telling me that I need to go back and re-read HBP! :lol: I read it through so quickly (trying to get to all the resolutions in DH) that I don't really remember the Crabbe and Filch episodes. I do remember Harry testing Levicorpus on Ron without knowing what it would do. And that was pretty disturbing.

I don't know if his near killing of Draco had much of an affect on him here. Hopefully it did, but Draco at least was posing a danger, unlike the other two.

I think it did, somewhat. He was shocked when he realized what he'd done. He was screaming, "No!" I mean, it's not like he was trying to kill Draco. Harry didn't know what he was trying to do because he didn't know what Sectumsempra did... and that's pretty disturbing in itself.

I do find it upsetting for his character growth that right after nearly killing Draco, he's arguing with Snape about the unfairness of getting detentions every Saturday for the rest of term and missing Quidditch. I mean, seriously? Harry's lucky Snape burst in to the bathroom and saved Draco's life because otherwise Harry would have been looking at a trip to Azkaban for murder. I think detention for near-homicide is more than fair. :yuhup:


I love Harry-- no surprise there, I grew up with the books. :lol:
I find him one of the most admirable characters in the series. Thinking of what he ultimately overcomes-- and I'm talking within himself, not so much the flashy fighting :yuhup:-- often brings me to tears. :)

Iggy? You? Tears? :yuhup:
Yeah, me too. I do love Harry, and I didn't grow up with him. :)

ETA:


I don't think Harry is a faultless saint. I think most of his outbursts are understandable. That doesn't mean they are morally right. It just means he is a flawed human being in extraordinary circumstances.

Actually, your post isn't what I was referring to. :) I agree with what you're saying here.

I find that in grief, people often (not always) try to find someone to blame for the death of their loved one. It isn't always rational- in fact, it is often quite irrational. I see this as entirely human. I think it is difficult to direct your anger or guilt at something intangible, like a war (or a disease as the case may be), and even more difficult to direct it at yourself or the person you lost. That's why people find scapegoats in their enemies (which is what Harry did), doctors, politicians or and sometimes in entire races of people.

Or perceived enemies. Yes, I agree that this is a psychological mechanism in grief and that it's entirely human. That doesn't mean that I don't often want to smack Harry upside the head. (see comments above :))

I think Harry did blame himself for Sirius's death, even in HBP. Unfortunately, he couldn't acknowledge that guilt on a conscious level, because he wasn't emotionally ready to do so. That's why, IMO, he directed his guilt at Snape.

That's an interesting thought. Can you show me where in the text you get the impression that he does blame himself for Sirius' death? This is not a challenge. I'm really interested in knowing where you see that. :) You probable know HBP better than I do.

That's an interesting thought. Can you show me where in the text you get the impression that he does blame himself for Sirius' death? This is not a challenge. I'm really interested in knowing where you see that. :) You probable know HBP better than I do.

I only have the first three books with me. I think there is a small line somewhere at the end of OotP, where Harry blames himself? It might even be when he's screaming at Dumbledore, he thinks something like "He couldn't bring himself to face his role in Sirius's death." I just remember something like that being at the end of OotP.

If it isn't in the text, then maybe it was more of a between-the-lines thing. :shrug:

Partially responded in the magnificent, glorious...http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/tibia/en/images/0/0c/Royal_Fanfare.gif Snape Thread! http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/tibia/en/images/0/0c/Royal_Fanfare.gif

Now you're telling me that I need to go back and re-read HBP! :lol: I read it through so quickly (trying to get to all the resolutions in DH) that I don't really remember the Crabbe and Filch episodes. I do remember Harry testing Levicorpus on Ron without knowing what it would do. And that was pretty disturbing.

*facepalm* I hadn't thought about that one. IIRC, Hermione comes in later during that scene and remarks that that's the same spell the DEs at the QWC used on the Muggles.

I do find it upsetting for his character growth that right after nearly killing Draco, he's arguing with Snape about the unfairness of getting detentions every Saturday for the rest of term and missing Quidditch. I mean, seriously?

It's almost absurd isn't it? Harry's standing up to his ankles in blood, going "But I wanna plaaaay!"

I think detention for near-homicide is more than fair. :yuhup:

Make that not fair at all. Fair would be a much harsher punishment. For someone who practically gets away with murder (hur hurrr) Harry's surprisingly normal. :huh:

Iggy? You? Tears? :yuhup:

Shocking, isn't it? You'd expect my repertoire to be mainly composed of ":love:"s, ":drool:", "Squee!"s and "ZOMG SNAAAAAPE!"s. ;)


If it isn't in the text, then maybe it was more of a between-the-lines thing. :shrug:

Yeah, it's in OotP. Harry reflects that blaming Snape "seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt."

Yeah, it's in OotP. Harry reflects that blaming Snape "seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt."

Ahhh...there it is! Thank you. It wasn't all in my head. :yuhup: Was it during The Lost Prophecy?

Ahhh...there it is! Thank you. It wasn't all in my head. :yuhup: Was it during The Lost Prophecy?

Yup. I know you don't have your copy of OotP with you ATM, but for future reference, it's on page 833 of the American hardcover. :D

*facepalm* I hadn't thought about that one. IIRC, Hermione comes in later during that scene and remarks that that's the same spell the DEs at the QWC used on the Muggles.

You're going to make me get up and get my copy of HBP, just when I've got my back on a pillow and the MacBook resting on my knees? :lol:

Actually, I don't know if you recall correctly about Hermione because I don't have my copy in front of me... but, it's certainly logical to assume Levicorpus is the same spell that the DE's used on the Muggles. And we know that it's the same spell that James used in SWM. Interesting that Harry didn't recognize it... but he was a little traumatized by witnessing SWM. ;)
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs18/f/2007/211/3/5/_levicorpus__by_invader_zim_14.gif

It's almost absurd isn't it? Harry's standing up to his ankles in blood, going "But I wanna plaaaay!"

Make that not fair at all. Fair would be a much harsher punishment. For someone who practically gets away with murder (hur hurrr) Harry's surprisingly normal. :huh:

Almost absurd? It's totally surreal! :yuhup:

You're right. It's not fair at all. Understatement is hard to get across on the Internet. :whistle: But apparently someone prevailed on Harry's Head of House not to expel him and to allow the situation be handled with detentions. ;)

Shocking, isn't it? You'd expect my repertoire to be mainly composed of ":love:"s, ":drool:", "Squee!"s and "ZOMG SNAAAAAPE!"s. ;)


I'm shocked! Shocked, tell you!!! :wow: :eeep: :scared:

Yeah, it's in OotP. Harry reflects that blaming Snape "seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt."

Ahhh...there it is! Thank you. It wasn't all in my head.

I'll have to look at that again. Thank you both. :tu:

It's only in HBP that I have really serious problems with Harry's anger. I understand that he's angry over Sirius' death, but he becomes murderously angry, and at the wrong person, wishing that Snape would literally die because of the big blow-up at Grimmauld Place that was literally 20 years coming - for both Severus and Sirius. Sirius died because Dumbledore put Harry at arm's length and Harry refused to practice Occlumency, but Harry insists on blaming his death on an argument that goes back much longer than Harry has even been alive. It's just so much easier to blame someone he already hates than it is to recognize that he and Dumbledore bear most of the blame for what happened at the Department of Mysteries. But Harry is able to overcome all that anger and hatred in the end... and that, for me, makes him a great hero, and a great man.

I always felt that this was a case of transference. I never felt that Harry deep down blamed anyone but himself for Sirius' death. His guilt over not learning Occulmency and letting Voldemort fool him, was so huge, that it would have destroyed him if he allowed himself to feel the full brunt of it. Sirius was the only parent figure he had, and he lost him, just like he had lost his parents. So, in my opinion, he transferred his guilt to avoid exploding.

And I think he was right to be really mad at Dumbledore, too.

Harry is my favorite character, but I also had trouble with the angry Harry in OotP. When you look at what happened to him in GoF, how he had tremendous guilt over suggesting to Cedric that they grab the TriWizard Cup together, how he saw him die, how he faced death in the graveyard, knowing that a helpless 14 year old had no chance against Voldemort and the Death Eaters, it is no wonder he was in bad shape by the time he got to Grimmauld Place. As a side note, one of my favorite scenes is Harry deciding that he is going to his death fighting rather than cowering behind a headstone.

I have first hand experience with a close family member who was driving the car that killed a man who ran in front of her. And even though no one blamed her, it wasn't her fault, she suffered post traumatic stress disorder and needed to work through it. Harry had plenty of trauma from that graveyard experience with no one to council or guide him. He was shunted off to Privet Drive where no one would talk to him. His best friends were off somewhere and he was alone and angry. He felt betrayed because they were loyal to Dumbledore rather than him.

And then he finds out that most of the Wizard World is calling him a liar, too. People he thought were his friends, like Seamus, turned against him. I didn't like the angry Harry in OotP, but I definitely understood it.

I always felt that this was a case of transference. I never felt that Harry deep down blamed anyone but himself for Sirius' death. His guilt over not learning Occulmency and letting Voldemort fool him, was so huge, that it would have destroyed him if he allowed himself to feel the full brunt of it. Sirius was the only parent figure he had, and he lost him, just like he had lost his parents. So, in my opinion, he transferred his guilt to avoid exploding.

And I think he was right to be really mad at Dumbledore, too.

Harry is my favorite character, but I also had trouble with the angry Harry in OotP. When you look at what happened to him in GoF, how he had tremendous guilt over suggesting to Cedric that they grab the TriWizard Cup together, how he saw him die, how he faced death in the graveyard, knowing that a helpless 14 year old had no chance against Voldemort and the Death Eaters, it is no wonder he was in bad shape by the time he got to Grimmauld Place. As a side note, one of my favorite scenes is Harry deciding that he is going to his death fighting rather than cowering behind a headstone.

I have first hand experience with a close family member who was driving the car that killed a man who ran in front of her. And even though no one blamed her, it wasn't her fault, she suffered post traumatic stress disorder and needed to work through it. Harry had plenty of trauma from that graveyard experience with no one to council or guide him. He was shunted off to Privet Drive where no one would talk to him. His best friends were off somewhere and he was alone and angry. He felt betrayed because they were loyal to Dumbledore rather than him.

And then he finds out that most of the Wizard World is calling him a liar, too. People he thought were his friends, like Seamus, turned against him. I didn't like the angry Harry in OotP, but I definitely understood it.

Okay okay okay, Susan! You make a compelling case for why Harry's as angry as he is!!! :)

Still, I hope you would agree that it would have been healthier for Harry to take out his anger on Dumbledore - who actually invited him to be angry with him (and who was big enough to take it) - than to actively wish for the death of the new DADA teacher, who bore little-to-no personal reponsibility for Sirius' death. Perhaps Harry could have worked through his anger more constructively if he had not misdirected it. Instead, it became like a cancer eating at him during HBP.

I love Harry. He's one of my top characters. But the problem I see in him pre-DH is that he often keeps his own counsel even at times when it would be best to listen to Dumbledore... or best to be forthcoming with Dumbledore. And in that sense, Snape's accusation that Harry is "arrogant" is on the mark. He's often too wise in his own eyes - and he's often completely mistaken.

So while I can see Harry's misdirected anger as understandable, that doesn't mean that I don't find it every bit as frustrating as I find Snape's. It's too bad that it took death to help those two understand each other.

:huggles:
I think that while Harry has legitimate reasons to be angry, that doesn't make it any more pleasant.

But the problem I see in him pre-DH is that he often keeps his own counsel even at times when it would be best to listen to Dumbledore... or best to be forthcoming with Dumbledore. And in that sense, Snape's accusation that Harry is "arrogant" is on the mark. He's often too wise in his own eyes - and he's often completely mistaken.

I think that's an ongoing thing with Harry a lot of the time. He comes to his own conclusions about something, often with little information or with a bias, and sticks to it no matter what others say. Occasionally, he's right, as he was about Draco being up to something in HBP, but even more often, he's completely off the mark.

I often wonder how much of that came from growing up with the Dursleys. Even at 11, Harry was well aware that he was the most reasonable person in the house, and happened to be right about that. He also had almost no adult support, which I think made him a lot more self-sufficient. Consequently, he makes a habit of taking problems into his own hands. :whistle:

I think that's an ongoing thing with Harry a lot of the time. He comes to his own conclusions about something, often with little information or with a bias, and sticks to it no matter what others say. Occasionally, he's right, as he was about Draco being up to something in HBP, but even more often, he's completely off the mark.

I often wonder how much of that came from growing up with the Dursleys. Even at 11, Harry was well aware that he was the most reasonable person in the house, and happened to be right about that. He also had almost no adult support, which I think made him a lot more self-sufficient. Consequently, he makes a habit of taking problems into his own hands. :whistle:

I really think that you are hitting the nail on the head here. :agree: I think this is exactly what happened with Harry. Children who grow up like Harry did, with no one to really depend on except themselves, learn to solve their own problems. They have a great deal of trouble reaching out to others, since their childhood experiences have taught them that turning to others means disappointment.

ETA: This is all my opinion. :)

Make that not fair at all. Fair would be a much harsher punishment. For someone who practically gets away with murder (hur hurrr) Harry's surprisingly normal.

Almost absurd? It's totally surreal!

You're right. It's not fair at all. Understatement is hard to get across on the Internet. But apparently someone prevailed on Harry's Head of House not to expel him and to allow the situation be handled with detentions. ;)

I do agree with you guys to some extent; Harry's careless use of a dangerous spell and apparent lack of true remorse for what he did to Draco both come across as somewhat callous; and I will definitely concede that he deserved what he got- long detentions and the removal of his Quidditch privileges. However, I also feel that many people discussing the scene tend to ignore the fact that Draco was about to earn himself a life sentence in Azkaban there just as surely as Harry was, and that the attempted use of an Unforgivable Curse on someone because they walked in on you crying in a public bathroom is just as reprehensible as using an unknown, albeit nasty, spell as a result of pressure. If Harry had attempted Sectumsmpra a split second later than he actually did, he would have been the one writhing on the bathroom floor and Draco would have been the one deserving of expulsion or worse.

In fact, I would say that Draco was far more in the wrong than Harry was in the bathroom scene. Draco knew full well what the Cruciatus curse did, and was about to use it on Harry with complete knowledge of its effects, and with full intent to injure. Harry blurted out his curse without having any indication as to what the result would be, and without any time to think of a different spell. I don't think the fact that Harry got his Dark curse out just a split second before Draco did his negates any blame the latter carries for the scene, or puts it all upon the former. In fact, I will say that I was thoroughly shocked and disappointed that Draco didn't get his just deserts for an attempted Unforgivable, whereas Harry was severely punished for a situation he could not have foreseen. I do think he should have come clean afterwards about where he learned the spell, and that things might have been dealt with more fairly if he hadn't lied to Snape, but that's another issue entirely. :)

However, I also feel that many people discussing the scene tend to ignore the fact that Draco was about to earn himself a life sentence in Azkaban there just as surely as Harry was

Are you being general or specific? Because I did mention that Draco was posing a danger to Harry, and that that was a significant difference from Harry's earlier, more casual hexings. :hmm:

I think there's oodles of blame and mitigating circumstances to go around between the two boys as it is. :lol: Both were under great pressure, and both casted their spells in an irresponsible way, without thinking of the consequences. And, in fact, both couldn't be expelled, no matter what they did. Harry had to stay safe at Hogwarts, and Draco needed to be under Snape's watch as dictated by the UV.

In fact, I will say that I was thoroughly shocked and disappointed that Draco didn't get his just deserts for an attempted Unforgivable

Yeah, I got a bit confused by that one at first. :whistle: Although correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from Harry's circle of Gryffindor friends, I don't think anyone else knew Draco had cast the Cruciatus. :hmm: And if anyone in authority did know, they couldn't expel Draco or put him at any considerable distance from Snape and Dumbledore. That would spell Snape's death by UV, since it would make watching over Draco nearly impossible.

I would agree that Draco deserved punishment. I think both of them really needed a lot more than detentions, since they put each other's lives at great risk. But the whole system's messed up by the war as it is. Both are valuable resources from DD's point of view, and I think DD often put what he saw as the needs of the anti-Voldemort cause over school rules.


(And it is kind of strange that Harry argues over his Quidditch punishment when there's blood all over. It's really the mental picture that gets me laughing. :lol:)

I just didn't interpret Harry's reaction to getting the detentions as denying that he deserved punishment. I thought Harry had a tremendous sense of horror and guilt over what he had done and knew it was wrong. There are lots of paragraphs that talk about his regret, and only a knee-jerk reaction to not being able to play in the Quidditch final, as I interpret the books.

In real life it seems that kids tend to protest a punishment, even when they know they deserve it, even when they don't like it, just because that is the way they think. The bottom line for me, and the thing that I interpreted from the books, is that Harry would never had cast that spell if he knew what it did.
It is my opinion.

:scared:

:huggles:
I think that while Harry has legitimate reasons to be angry, that doesn't make it any more pleasant.
True after a while it gets annoying to read it again and again.I mean everyone gets angry sometimes but into some it becomes a primary emotion.

I do agree with you guys to some extent; Harry's careless use of a dangerous spell and apparent lack of true remorse for what he did to Draco both come across as somewhat callous; and I will definitely concede that he deserved what he got- long detentions and the removal of his Quidditch privileges. However, I also feel that many people discussing the scene tend to ignore the fact that Draco was about to earn himself a life sentence in Azkaban there just as surely as Harry was, and that the attempted use of an Unforgivable Curse on someone because they walked in on you crying in a public bathroom is just as reprehensible as using an unknown, albeit nasty, spell as a result of pressure. If Harry had attempted Sectumsmpra a split second later than he actually did, he would have been the one writhing on the bathroom floor and Draco would have been the one deserving of expulsion or worse.

In fact, I would say that Draco was far more in the wrong than Harry was in the bathroom scene. Draco knew full well what the Cruciatus curse did, and was about to use it on Harry with complete knowledge of its effects, and with full intent to injure. Harry blurted out his curse without having any indication as to what the result would be, and without any time to think of a different spell. I don't think the fact that Harry got his Dark curse out just a split second before Draco did his negates any blame the latter carries for the scene, or puts it all upon the former. In fact, I will say that I was thoroughly shocked and disappointed that Draco didn't get his just deserts for an attempted Unforgivable, whereas Harry was severely punished for a situation he could not have foreseen. I do think he should have come clean afterwards about where he learned the spell, and that things might have been dealt with more fairly if he hadn't lied to Snape, but that's another issue entirely. :)

Another place where people blame Harry for his actions (Crucio) and put it all on defending Professor McGonagall (in DH) when in the Ravenclaw common room with Amycus. Most of them fail to mention that Alecto having pressed her Dark Mark and calling Voldemort to a false alarm was going to be blamed on an ambush by the Ravenclaw students (who were sleeping upstairs) "He can punish them. Couple of kids more or less, what's the difference?" - The Sacking of Severus Snape

Neville had told Harry what the Carrows had been up to all year. I would have "Crucio"ed him, too. :agree:

the attempted use of an Unforgivable Curse on someone because they walked in on you crying in a public bathroom is just as reprehensible as using an unknown, albeit nasty, spell as a result of pressure.

Precisely.

And I would have thought it being labeled 'for enemies' would give Harry some inkling of the spell's nature? Seeing as he already got to sample those not labeled, I mean...

If Harry had attempted Sectumsempra a split second later than he actually did, he would have been the one writhing on the bathroom floor and Draco would have been the one deserving of expulsion or worse.

Are we quite certain Draco 'meant it' to that extent? He didn't exactly strike me as having the stomach for Unforgivables...

Though I must admit to mild amusement looking back on this scene after DH: Expelliarmus for the Dark Lord and Sectumsempra for Draco... that was some pressure Harry was feeling.

Harry blurted out his curse without having any indication as to what the result would be, and without any time to think of a different spell

Expelliarmus, perhaps? He seemed to put a lot of stock into it, seeing as he used it twice against Voldy.

Harry was severely punished for a situation he could not have foreseen.

No? Since 'friendly' spells like Levicorpus left people hanging upside down, he attempted to thwart an Unforgivable with a hostile one expecting it would... do what, exactly?

True after a while it gets annoying to read it again and again.I mean everyone gets angry sometimes but into some it becomes a primary emotion.

I think for Harry it was also showing a sense of freedom. Harry was brought up in a household where he could not ask questions; not even about his parents; he had not seen their photos until he was 11 and at Hogwarts (was it at the end of the year, when Hagrid gave the photo album to Harry?); he could not show his anger, resentment or any other feeling or emotion to any of the Dursleys. I think once he reached Hogwarts, a little (not much) but a little of all that pent up emotion spilled out, in anger mostly.

Are we quite certain Draco 'meant it' to that extent? He didn't exactly strike me as having the stomach for Unforgivables...

Does it matter if he meant it with all his heart? He did it, so the intent was there, that doesn't make using an unforgivable right. I personally don't understand how people can justify the use of an unforgivable. (I don't agree with Harry using an unforgivable either or a spell he doesn't know)

I think for Harry it was also showing a sense of freedom. Harry was brought up in a household where he could not ask questions; not even about his parents; he had not seen their photos until he was 11 and at Hogwarts (was it at the end of the year, when Hagrid gave the photo album to Harry?); he could not show his anger, resentment or any other feeling or emotion to any of the Dursleys. I think once he reached Hogwarts, a little (not much) but a little of all that pent up emotion spilled out, in anger mostly.

Perhaps he has perfect reasons for it but considering this is a book series and you have very often Mrs. Weasly shouting at someone and the fights between Ron and Hermione and then Harry too it becomes very annoying and boring. You might start to wonder if Harry is not just angrier then Voldemort and thats why he won.I would think Harry had enough enemies to fight with his friends too if only verbally.

Does it matter if he meant it with all his heart? He did it, so the intent was there, that doesn't make using an unforgivable right. I personally don't understand how people can justify the use of an unforgivable. (I don't agree with Harry using an unforgivable either or a spell he doesn't know)

In light of the particular part of LoonyForMoony's post I was responding to...

If Harry had attempted Sectumsempra a split second later than he actually did, he would have been the one writhing on the bathroom floor and Draco would have been the one deserving of expulsion or worse.

...yes, it actually does.

Personally, I found both boys irresponsible to the extreme - it was truly a no-win situation, as they risked their missions at best and their lives at worst - but wasn't that the whole point of the scene?

As for the intent (to harm, I presume?)... does it matter whether you choose Sectumsempra or Crucio?

As for the intent (to harm, I presume?)... does it matter whether you choose Sectumsempra or Crucio?

I think Sectumsempra kills faster

Are we quite certain Draco 'meant it' to that extent? He didn't exactly strike me as having the stomach for Unforgivables...


I don't think it very likely that Draco would have had the guts to carry on a prolonged and powerful Cruciatus Curse- even though Harry had just humiliated him to a great extent, and I'm sure Draco was extremely angry- but I never heard that the punishment for a wimpy Unforgivable is different than the punishment for a strong one. ;) The intent was there, and the word was used, and I would say that counts as use enough to invoke the full sentence. I'm talking theoretically, of course, since Draco didn't end up using the curse and wouldn't have been able to be expelled from Hogwarts in any case- but what I'm trying to say is that the intent was there.

Expelliarmus, perhaps? He seemed to put a lot of stock into it, seeing as he used it twice against Voldy.

When you're lying in a bunch of water on the floor looking at a person you despise about to use a horribly painful Dark curse on you and only a split-second to react, your mind doesn't, perhaps, function quite as it normally would. I know that when I'm under pressure to say or do something, my mind goes blank and I usually can't think of what I would have said under normal circumstances. (An example would be if someone asks you a trivia question with an answer you know, but you have only two seconds to respond and your mind blanks out. That's sort of the feeling I'm attributing to Harry here.) If I were in Harry's position, I would probably blurt out the first word that came to mind, and not go fishing around in my brain for the most logical or advisable spell to use in the situation. ;) All of Harry's instincts for basic survival were at work here, and somehow I can't blame him for the Sectumsempra as much as I do Draco for the Cruciatus. If only because of the fact that Harry was the one on the floor.... Draco had the upper hand in the situation, if only temporarily, and this makes the fact that he tried to employ an Unforgivable more despicable in my opinion.

No? Since 'friendly' spells like Levicorpus left people hanging upside down, he attempted to thwart an Unforgivable with a hostile one expecting it would... do what, exactly?

Similar answer to the one above. No one is suggesting that the Sectumsempra was advisable, or a "good" thing to do, but it's not as if Harry had any time to consider the implications of what he was saying. He said the first word that came to his mind, and it was his bad luck, and Draco's, that it was an extremely nasty spell. And I do believe him when he says afterward that he would never have used the spell if he knew what it did; and that, I think, draws the most basic difference between his motives and Draco's. Draco knew what his Dark curse did and attempted to use it anyway; Harry didn't.

As for the intent (to harm, I presume?)... does it matter whether you choose Sectumsempra or Crucio?

Legally, yes. The Cruciatus is Unforgivable; Sectumsempra is not.

When you're lying in a bunch of water on the floor looking at a person you despise about to use a horribly painful Dark curse on you and only a split-second to react, your mind doesn't, perhaps, function quite as it normally would. I know that when I'm under pressure to say or do something, my mind goes blank and I usually can't think of what I would have said under normal circumstances. (An example would be if someone asks you a trivia question with an answer you know, but you have only two seconds to respond and your mind blanks out. That's sort of the feeling I'm attributing to Harry here.) If I were in Harry's position, I would probably blurt out the first word that came to mind, and not go fishing around in my brain for the most logical or advisable spell to use in the situation. ;) All of Harry's instincts for basic survival were at work here, and somehow I can't blame him for the Sectumsempra as much as I do Draco for the Cruciatus. If only because of the fact that Harry was the one on the floor.... Draco had the upper hand in the situation, if only temporarily, and this makes the fact that he tried to employ an Unforgivable more despicable in my opinion.

In actuality, Harry was absolutely itching to try out Sectumsempra in order to find out what it did. He was obsessed with the spell. It's not really like he had no time to think of another spell. This was a conscious choice to use a spell labeled "for enemies" because he really really really wanted to try it out and find out what it did... and the situation with Draco gave him a perfect excuse.

Thankfully, for the sake of his soul, Harry was appalled when he saw what Sectumsempra did. But there was zero legitimate excuse for him using that spell - particularly when he'd already seen what the other spells not labeled "for enemies" could do.

If Harry had not already been obsessed with testing out Sectumsempra, he would almost certainly have used Expelliarmus.

Does it matter if he meant it with all his heart? He did it, so the intent was there, that doesn't make using an unforgivable right. I personally don't understand how people can justify the use of an unforgivable. (I don't agree with Harry using an unforgivable either or a spell he doesn't know)

I think the point is that people who defend Harry with "Draco should have been on his way to Azkaban for life" are overlooking that, by that same standard of justice, Harry should never have been in a position to be attacked by Draco in HBP. He should have already been serving HIS life sentence for his attack on Bellatrix Lestrange at the end of the previous book. :)

This is usually defended by readers based on Bella's own comment to Harry at the time, that righteous anger will not hurt her long and one really needs to "mean it". I agree that there is little evidence Draco was any better at "meaning it" than Harry. In fact, I find his reaching for Crucio and Harry's reaching for a spell "for enemies" to be very much of a piece. I do not think Draco had any better idea what the result of his spell would be, than Harry. We certainly have no evidence Draco has either seen or cast a Crucio before.

I think the point is that people who defend Harry with "Draco should have been on his way to Azkaban for life" are overlooking that, by that same standard of justice, Harry should never have been in a position to be attacked by Draco in HBP. He should have already been serving HIS life sentence for his attack on Bellatrix Lestrange at the end of the previous book.

Well yeah both were wrong, but then again you can start a discussion if minors should be judged as severly as if they would be adults. But that would be dragging the thread off topic methinks.

We certainly have no evidence Draco has either seen or cast a Crucio before.

We are starting to focus too much on Draco in this thread now, but Draco was the son of Death Eaters, he was even on a special mission for Voldemort. It sounds to me very improbable that he doesn't know what crucio means (even if he hasn't seen it or performed it himself yet)

When you're lying in a bunch of water on the floor looking at a person you despise about to use a horribly painful Dark curse on you and only a split-second to react, your mind doesn't, perhaps, function quite as it normally would.

Sans 'bunch of water', it could actually refer to a rendezvous with Voldemort. Or are you suggesting Harry despised Draco more than the Dark Lord himself?

He said the first word that came to his mind, and it was his bad luck, and Draco's, that it was an extremely nasty spell.

My point exactly: the first thing that came to his mind was a spell 'for enemies', not a disarming spell. Unlike with Voldy. :relax:

Legally, yes. The Cruciatus is Unforgivable; Sectumsempra is not.

Now, that was a decidedly Slytherin argument.... :lol:

...would it still apply had the roles been reversed? ;)

Sorry, Hes. This discussion, though dealing with Harry's character, naturally has to involve Draco to some extent; but I'm trying to stay focused on Harry's motives here- the situation with Draco being merely a sort of jumping-off point for said discussion of Harry. I'm going to reply to Daggerstone's statements about Draco, but I'll try to keep it more about Harry in future posts. :)


I think the point is that people who defend Harry with "Draco should have been on his way to Azkaban for life" are overlooking that, by that same standard of justice, Harry should never have been in a position to be attacked by Draco in HBP. He should have already been serving HIS life sentence for his attack on Bellatrix Lestrange at the end of the previous book.

(Well, going down this train of thought, Bella most definitely shouldn't have been in a position to be attacked by Harry at the Ministry, but the might-have-beens can go on indefinitely if you start doing that. ;) )

I wasn't suggesting that Draco should literally have been tossed into Azkaban for his attack on Harry. The point I was trying to get across is that Draco was just as much to blame for what happened in that bathroom as Harry was. There is obviously mercy mixed with Dumbledore's justice, and I don't think any minor under his protection would ever truly be in danger of such a horrible sentence as Azkaban, even for using an Unforgivable curse. However, I was trying to refute those posters who seemed to be forcing Harry and Draco into the roles of callous murderer on the rampage and innocent and unsuspecting victim, respectively. Both boys were extremely irresponsible, and if you follow their actions to their objective conclusion, ignoring the special circumstances involving both boys, a stint in Azkaban wouldn't be out of the question for either of them.

This was the only point I was attempting to communicate- that both Harry and Draco were to blame for using or attempting to use Dark curses on one another, and that Harry was not, as several posters seemed to imply, a red-to-the-elbows psychopath with no remorse for his sadistic attack on an unsuspecting victim. It was pretty much kill-or-be-killed situation, with plenty of emotional buildup and irresponsibility on both sides.

And I hold to what I said before, that I don't think the discipline for the incident was meted out fairly. Harry was given a somewhat severe punishment for his role in the affair, while Draco was led off to the hospital wing to be mopped up and, as far as we know, never asked to account or atone for his attempted Unforgivable curse. And of course, let's not forget that Draco attacked first. Harry offered no provocation whatsoever (unless you count that he walked into a bathroom- tut tut, how horrible!), and Draco drew his wand and cast a hex. It should be noted that this does deviate drastically from the film version of events, where Harry struts into the bathroom and aggressively accuses Draco of hexing Katie, when he is both physically and emotionally vulnerable. I admit that even I want to slap him at that part in the film! :lol:

I do not think Draco had any better idea what the result of his spell would be, than Harry. We certainly have no evidence Draco has either seen or cast a Crucio before.

Hmmm. I find this to be an extremely faulty bit of logic- the books never explicitly state whether or not Draco has personally seen a Crucio cast (though I don't see how it would be possible for him not to, considering he hangs out with Death Eaters and has Bellatrix Lestrange with an aunt) so we need to assume he wouldn't know the result of the curse? Fake!Moody formally taught his students about the Unforgivable curses two years before the bathroom incident, so there's evidence that Draco knew at least as much about the Unforgivables as the next student- though, considering the environment in which he grew up, I wouldn't be surprised if he knew quite a bit more then the rest of them did. And even assuming he only knew what Moody told them, that's more than Harry knew about Sectumsempra. Sure, he knew it was "for enemies", but that's a lot vaguer than actually knowing what a curse does and what you're getting yourself into by employing it- as I'm quite sure Draco did. :)

And I hold to what I said before, that I don't think the discipline for the incident was meted out fairly. Harry was given a somewhat severe punishment for his role in the affair, while Draco was led off to the hospital wing to be mopped up and, as far as we know, never asked to account or atone for his attempted Unforgivable curse.

I don't find it strange that Draco wasn't punished, in that no one else was present to witness the incident in the bathroom, except for Moaning Myrtle. I think at the time Harry was too shocked at what he had done to even mention Draco's attempt at an Unforgiveable to Snape.
In fact from what we see I don't think Harry told anyone about what actually happened except Hermione, Ron and Ginny.

However, I was trying to refute those posters who seemed to be forcing Harry and Draco into the roles of callous murderer on the rampage and innocent and unsuspecting victim, respectively. Both boys were extremely irresponsible, and if you follow their actions to their objective conclusion, ignoring the special circumstances involving both boys, a stint in Azkaban wouldn't be out of the question for either of them.

This was the only point I was attempting to communicate- that both Harry and Draco were to blame for using or attempting to use Dark curses on one another, and that Harry was not, as several posters seemed to imply, a red-to-the-elbows psychopath with no remorse for his sadistic attack on an unsuspecting victim.

Who said anything like that? Certainly not me! Harry is neither a psychopath nor a callous murderer on the rampage. And Draco is not blameless. Harry did not intend to kill Draco or to severely injure him. His horrified response indicates that he is no killer.

BUT there was still no legitimate excuse for Harry to use an unknown spell labeled "For Enemies." The reason he used it is that he was obsessed with the spell, obsessed with finding out what it did. An altercation with Draco gave him the perfect opportunity to find out. Harry was so itching to use that spell that he most likely would have used it if the worst Draco had thrown at him had been Furnunculus.

Now, mind you, Harry would never have used Sectumsempra in that bathroom situation (Crucio or no Crucio) if he had actually known what it did. But it seems pretty clear from HBP that the reason it was the first spell that came to his mind was that Harry had become utterly obsessed with Sectumsempra.

It was pretty much kill-or-be-killed situation, with plenty of emotional buildup and irresponsibility on both sides.

Actually, it was not literally "kill-or-be-killed," given that Crucio does not kill the victim. Now please understand, I think there's never any excuse for Crucio because in real life I believe there's never any excuse for torture. So I'm not excusing Draco's... or Harry's... attempts to use the Cruciatus Curse. I'm just saying it's not a killing curse.

And I do think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if Draco had died, it's very likely that Harry would have wound up in Azkaban, Dumbledore's mercy or not. Harry was very fortunate that Snape was the first one on the scene because Snape alone knew the countercurse that saved Draco's life.

So to sum up: Harry's not a psychopathic callous murderer. He's an obsessed kid who made a terrible mistake in an emotionally heightened situation. And he's very fortunate that no lasting harm was done. In fact, I think that nearly killing Draco - and discovering that it is about the last thing he really wants to do - is ironically the seeds for the change in the way these two young men perceive each other.

Nice post, CC. :)

Who said anything like that? Certainly not me! Harry is neither a psychopath nor a callous murderer on the rampage. And Draco is not blameless. Harry did not intend to kill Draco or to severely injure him. His horrified response indicates that he is no killer.

I see it that way too. I don't think there was really any division of "sides" here, where one side believes X kid was blameless and the other side believes Y kid was blameless. I'm sure all of us believe the situation is fraught with complications and mixed motives. Looking over the discussion again, I don't see any trace of division prior to the subject being brought up. That was why I asked LoonyForMoony if she was being general or specific: I'm sure there's tons of division in general fandom over this subject. I just didn't see it in this specific discussion. :hmm:

Who said anything like that? Certainly not me! Harry is neither a psychopath nor a callous murderer on the rampage. And Draco is not blameless. Harry did not intend to kill Draco or to severely injure him. His horrified response indicates that he is no killer.


No offense, and I'm honestly not attacking anyone here, but that's not what several users seemed to be expressing a few pages back. ignisia states the view that Harry is "surprisingly normal" for someone who "practically gets away with murder". She also uses the imagery of Harry "standing up to his ankles in blood" while whining about his punishment, which she describes as not nearly harsh enough. CC expresses the opinion that "someone" must have prevailed on Harry's Head of House to "allow the situation to be handled with detentions", implying that the detentions are not nearly enough for Harry's heinous crime. In neither instance is Draco mentioned at all, except as an innocent victim of Harry's murderous tendencies. Again, I'm not attacking anyone, nor calling either of you out. If neither ignisia nor CC was attempting to evoke an image of Harry as a callous psychopath with these descriptions of his actions, then I apologize for misconstruing their meaning. However, I'm sure you will understand that they could be interpreted that way, and that extremely negative language was used regarding both Harry's actions and the punishment he earned for them. I know (from experience!) that statements on the internet can, for obvious reasons, be misunderstood and provoke reactions which they did not intend, and perhaps that's what happened here; however, the language used in both of the posts I referenced did not seem to promote the balanced view of the incident which CC expresses in the quote above, but rather seemed to put complete and slightly exaggerated blame upon Harry, while not referencing Draco's role in the affair at all. :) This is what I was referring to above when I said that I felt some posters were viewing Harry as a manic psychopath, and minimizing Draco's guilt for the attempted use of an Unforgivable, among other things.

"Up to his ankles in blood" was an exaggeration for comic effect. I do find it truly ironic that Harry is concerned about Quidditch at that particular moment, but I do not think there is literally about a foot of blood in the room, nor does the irony I see imply (to me) that Harry is insane/unfeeling-- merely that he is rather ridiculously misprioritizing (spellcheck tells me I've just made up a word) the situation-- and he wouldn't be the last kid to do so.

Considering how I had just finished by saying that I love Harry and find him a sympathetic character, I consider myself the last person to call him Tom Riddle v. 2.0, and I had hoped that that had come across. :sigh:

As for Draco's part in the fiasco, I did not mention him in depth because this is the Harry thread, and I had assumed that we all believed Harry's motive to be self-defense and that we all knew Draco had flung his own spell.

But...of course...we all know the saying about what happens when you assume. ;)

CC expresses the opinion that "someone" must have prevailed on Harry's Head of House to "allow the situation to be handled with detentions", implying that the detentions are not nearly enough for Harry's heinous crime. In neither instance is Draco mentioned at all, except as an innocent victim of Harry's murderous tendencies. Again, I'm not attacking anyone, nor calling either of you out. If neither ignisia nor CC was attempting to evoke an image of Harry as a callous psychopath with these descriptions of his actions, then I apologize for misconstruing their meaning. However, I'm sure you will understand that they could be interpreted that way, and that extremely negative language was used regarding both Harry's actions and the punishment he earned for them.

Okay, apology accepted. Let me clarify then: since Draco is not the subject of this thread, I was trying to keep the focus on Harry and Harry's culpability. I think the subject of Draco's culpability is best left for the Draco thread.

At any rate, I never said anything - or even hinted at anything - about Harry possessing murderous tendencies. I never said or hinted at anything about psychopathology. I never said or hinted at anything about Draco being an innocent victim. All I said was that Harry nearly killed Draco and McGonnagall was prevailed upon not to expel Harry. Both of those statements are canon (McGonnagall basically tells Harry he should have been expelled and, apparently Snape prevailed upon her to let Harry off with detentions). In that context, I don't think it's unreasonable to find it a bit surreal for Harry to be complaining to Snape about getting detention when the punishment could, and probably should, have been much more severe.

I will repeat (as I have repeated several times upthread): Harry is one of my top three characters in the series. I do not believe, however, that my love for Harry excuses him from using an unknown curse labeled "For Enemies." And I do not believe that saying that he could rightly have found himself in a much bigger heap of trouble than he did indicates in any way that I think he's a callous murdering psychopath.

Harry's not perfect. Harry made a mistake. Harry might have suffered much worse consequences. That's the tenor of what I was saying.

ignisia states the view that Harry is "surprisingly normal" for someone who "practically gets away with murder". She also uses the imagery of Harry "standing up to his ankles in blood" while whining about his punishment, which she describes as not nearly harsh enough.

Well, actually I think Iggy has a point about Harry whining.

HBP,Sectumsempra
'We'll see how you feel after your detentions,' said Snape . 'Ten o'clock Saturday morning, Potter. My office.'
'But, sir...' said Harry, looking up desperately. 'Quidditch ...the last match of the...'

No offense, and I'm honestly not attacking anyone here, but that's not what several users seemed to be expressing a few pages back. ignisia states the view that Harry is "surprisingly normal" for someone who "practically gets away with murder". She also uses the imagery of Harry "standing up to his ankles in blood" while whining about his punishment, which she describes as not nearly harsh enough. CC expresses the opinion that "someone" must have prevailed on Harry's Head of House to "allow the situation to be handled with detentions", implying that the detentions are not nearly enough for Harry's heinous crime. In neither instance is Draco mentioned at all, except as an innocent victim of Harry's murderous tendencies. Again, I'm not attacking anyone, nor calling either of you out. If neither ignisia nor CC was attempting to evoke an image of Harry as a callous psychopath with these descriptions of his actions, then I apologize for misconstruing their meaning. However, I'm sure you will understand that they could be interpreted that way, and that extremely negative language was used regarding both Harry's actions and the punishment he earned for them. I know (from experience!) that statements on the internet can, for obvious reasons, be misunderstood and provoke reactions which they did not intend, and perhaps that's what happened here; however, the language used in both of the posts I referenced did not seem to promote the balanced view of the incident which CC expresses in the quote above, but rather seemed to put complete and slightly exaggerated blame upon Harry, while not referencing Draco's role in the affair at all. :) This is what I was referring to above when I said that I felt some posters were viewing Harry as a manic psychopath, and minimizing Draco's guilt for the attempted use of an Unforgivable, among other things.

I too thought that there was a lot of negative posts about Harry on this subject. No one was posting that Harry may have had a reason for what he did, and that reason might have been a reaction to Draco's cursing first. I can't really see the difference between mentioning what Harry did negatively as it concerns Draco, or mentioning what Harry did to protect himself from Draco. Draco is the other player in the scenario and if the purpose is not to bring him into Harry's thread, then don't mention the scenario in the first place.

Well, actually I think Iggy has a point about Harry whining.

HBP,Sectumsempra
'We'll see how you feel after your detentions,' said Snape . 'Ten o'clock Saturday morning, Potter. My office.'
'But, sir...' said Harry, looking up desperately. 'Quidditch ...the last match of the...'

Saying something desperately now counts as whining? :hmm: To be quite honest, I don't get the furor over Harry protesting the removal of his Quidditch privileges; Harry was team captain, and Gryffindor's honor, in his eyes, was depending on his ability to guide his team to victory. There is a paragraph earlier in the book where Harry is shown ruefully thinking that if Gryffindor loses under his captaincy, he'll always be remembered as the team captain who led Gryffindor to its worst defeat in hundreds of years. This thought is obviously painful to him, and I think that wanting Gryffindor to put in a good showing during his first year of leading the team is completely understandable, and that it was a high priority in Harry's mind around when the bathroom scene occurred. He had been putting a lot of effort into getting a strong team together and having regular training sessions all year. Sure, he feels awful about what happened to Draco, but I also think his reaction to the news that his team will be playing without him is completely understandable- and not, in the words of previous posters, "absurd" or "almost surreal". :)

At any rate, I never said anything - or even hinted at anything - about Harry possessing murderous tendencies. I never said or hinted at anything about psychopathology. I never said or hinted at anything about Draco being an innocent victim.

Okay. I apologized and you accepted my apology regarding the fact that you did not mean to come across that way. However, you and ignisia posted back and forth several times using hyperbole and extremely negative language to express your feelings about Harry's actions in the bathroom scene and the punishment he (should have) received as a result of it. As I said, Iggy used the term "up to his ankles in blood" (if that doesn't evoke the idea of a deranged murderer, I don't know what does!) when he was not, in fact, up to his ankles in blood. She paraphrased Harry's desperation about his Quidditch match in a sarcastic, negative way, making Harry sound like a heartless, whining brat, while commenting that his punishment should have been much harsher, which you, CC, agreed with. I understand not wanting to bring up Draco's motives in Harry's thread, but leaving him completely out of the reckoning when he bears a hefty load of the blame for what happened in the bathroom makes Harry look like the bad guy, if only by omission and implication. I believe you guys when you say that you didn't mean to come across this way- right now I'm just trying to explain why I interpreted your statements the way I did. Okay? :)

I too thought that there was a lot of negative posts about Harry on this subject. No one was posting that Harry may have had a reason for what he did, and that reason might have been a reaction to Draco's cursing first. I can't really see the difference between mentioning what Harry did negatively as it concerns Draco, or mentioning what Harry did to protect himself from Draco. Draco is the other player in the scenario and if the purpose is not to bring him into Harry's thread, then don't mention the scenario in the first place.

I personally believe that Harry's behavior can be evaluated quite independently of Draco's. Harry's use of the Sectumsempra, I believe, is objectively wrong, regardless of what Draco was throwing at him. Harry doesn't know what it does, and it does something that he never would have wished. It's reckless behavior.

In fact, Harry was so anxious to test out what the Sectumsempra did that he was thinking of trying it out on McLaggen:

Harry was about to put his book away when he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned "For Enemies," that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did, mainly because he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen next time he came up behind him unawares.

An altercation with Draco just gave Harry an opportunity to test out the spell. I do not regard this as being overly negative towards Harry. I think it's being realistic. I think the text supports it.

Harry made a mistake. Is it wrong to point out that he made a mistake? It doesn't make me love him any less.

Harry's not perfect. Harry made a mistake. Harry might have suffered much worse consequences.

I think that says it in a nutshell for me.

To be quite honest, I don't get the furor over Harry protesting the removal of his Quidditch privileges; Harry was team caption, and Gryffindor's honor, in his eyes, was depending on his ability to guide his team to victory. There is a paragraph earlier in the book where Harry is shown ruefully thinking that if Gryffindor loses under his captaincy, he'll always be remembered as the team captain who led Gryffindor to its worst defeat in hundreds of years.

I can understand the Quidditch match being very important to Harry. However, after what had just happened, I think he might have been more relieved that he had only got away with detentions, and kept his mouth shut. As McGonagall said he was lucky not to be expelled.

Okay, you guys, time to move on from the 'he said, she said' spiel. Just try to be clear in future posts and please don't always assume to worst from your fellow posters.

I can understand the Quidditch match being very important to Harry. However, after what had just happened, I think he might have been more relieved that he had only got away with detentions, and kept his mouth shut. As McGonagall said he was lucky not to be expelled.

I agree.

What would you do after you've nearly killed someone and didn't suffer the full consequences of your actions (as per Macgonagall - expulsion)? I know I would be relieved,terrified and grateful at the same time. I don't think losing privileges would seem so unfair to me that I'd want to protest and plead for them to be restored. That's just my personal understanding of the seriousness of the situation - but given that Draco did almost die, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something along those lines from any person in Harry's shoes. From that point of view, I do find it odd that he can worry about Quidditch at that moment, let alone protest that he shouldn't be denied Quidditch privileges.

Okay. I apologized and you accepted my apology regarding the fact that you did not mean to come across that way. However, you and ignisia posted back and forth several times using hyperbole and extremely negative language to express your feelings about Harry's actions in the bathroom scene and the punishment he (should have) received as a result of it. As I said, Iggy used the term "up to his ankles in blood" (if that doesn't evoke the idea of a deranged murderer, I don't know what does!) when he was not, in fact, up to his ankles in blood. She paraphrased Harry's desperation about his Quidditch match in a sarcastic, negative way, making Harry sound like a heartless, whining brat, while commenting that his punishment should have been much harsher, which you, CC, agreed with. I understand not wanting to bring up Draco's motives in Harry's thread, but leaving him completely out of the reckoning when he bears a hefty load of the blame for what happened in the bathroom makes Harry look like the bad guy, if only by omission and implication. I believe you guys when you say that you didn't mean to come across this way- right now I'm just trying to explain why I interpreted your statements the way I did. Okay? :)

Iggy and I joke a lot. Apparently our smiley faces did not have the desired effect. :sad:

So let me try to give you a little peak into my head and what's behind my thought process here:

When Harry realizes that Draco is dying right in front of him (and Draco would have died without Snape's countercurse), he is shocked and horrified and can't believe what he's done. This is his reaction - not only mine. This is how he regards the casting of the Sectumsempra. He wishes he could take it back. He knows it was wrong. And I agree with him. ;)

Yet a few minutes later, he is arguing about detention with Snape. :hmm:

It is the incongruity of these two parts of the scene that I find surreal. Harry knows that he deserves to be punished, and severely... but Good Lord, don't take away his Quidditch! I personally find that reaction amusing. (And that's what we were joking about). I believe I used the :yuhup: smiley face.

Please, do not assume the worst of us for finding the incongruity funny. I would bet that years later, in thinking about that scene, Harry himself would have slapped his head and wondered, "What on earth was I thinking?" :D

I don't believe he's a heartless brat. I just think he's a teenager who has lost lost all sense of perspective.

I agree.

What would you do after you've nearly killed someone and didn't suffer the full consequences of your actions (as per McGonagall - expulsion)? I know I would be relieved,terrified and grateful at the same time. I don't think losing privileges would seem so unfair to me that I'd want to protest and plead for them to be restored. That's just my personal understanding of the seriousness of the situation - but given that Draco did almost die, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something along those lines from any person in Harry's shoes. From that point of view, I do find it odd that he can worry about Quidditch at that moment, let alone protest that he shouldn't be denied Quidditch privileges.

As it has been made clear throughout the books, physical injuries in the WW are common place and for the most part easily cured. I think a good case for Harry not understanding how serious Sectumsepra was can be made. He has received reassurance from Remus that Levicorpus is not Dark Magic and was widely used in the school, he has even seen it used in SWM. It does no real physical harm to the person being jinxed. He has followed the Prince's instructions all year and has had good results. He is curious about the spell, that does not mean that he was consumed with the desire to use it on an enemy, it means he was curious about what it did. He is a normal kid and kids are curious. He was attacked without provocation and used the first spell that came into his mind, it was not a deliberate murder attempt. It was an attempt to protect himself.
If Harry did not protest about the Quiddich match, I would have been very surprised. At that time in his life Quiddich was very important to Harry. It was the time when he could forget all about LV and the war and just lose himself in something that he loved and was good at. It also gave him much needed confidence and admiration for something that he did on his own and not as 'The Boy Who Lived.' Harry needed Quiddich, it was his escape from a reality that must have been unbearable at times.

I don't believe he's a heartless brat. I just think he's a teenager who has lost lost all sense of perspective.
:agree: I agree!
]He is curious about the spell, that does not mean that he was consumed with the desire to use it on an enemy, it means he was curious about what it did. He is a normal kid and kids are curious. He was attacked without provocation and used the first spell that came into his mind, it was not a deliberate murder attempt. It was an attempt to protect himself.

That's more or less what has been said by CC. No one I think agrees that Harry would have used that spell if he knew exactly what it did.

If Harry did not protest about the Quiddich match, I would have been very surprised. At that time in his life Quiddich was very important to Harry. It was the time when he could forget all about LV and the war and just lose himself in something that he loved and was good at. It also gave him much needed confidence and admiration for something that he did on his own and not as 'The Boy Who Lived.' Harry needed Quiddich, it was his escape from a reality that must have been unbearable at times.

Yet, he is horified and quite rightly about what he has just done. He realises the seriousness.

HBP, Sectumsempra
Harry was still watching horrified by what he had done, barely aware that he too was soaked in blood and water.

However, he seems to forget this very quickly when the his punishment affects his Quidditch. I agree with CC, he is a kid who lost perspective.

As it has been made clear throughout the books, physical injuries in the WW are common place and for the most part easily cured. I think a good case for Harry not understanding how serious Sectumsepra was can be made. He has received reassurance from Remus that Levicorpus is not Dark Magic and was widely used in the school, he has even seen it used in SWM. It does no real physical harm to the person being jinxed. He has followed the Prince's instructions all year and has had good results. He is curious about the spell, that does not mean that he was consumed with the desire to use it on an enemy, it means he was curious about what it did. He is a normal kid and kids are curious. He was attacked without provocation and used the first spell that came into his mind, it was not a deliberate murder attempt. It was an attempt to protect himself.
If Harry did not protest about the Quiddich match, I would have been very surprised. At that time in his life Quiddich was very important to Harry. It was the time when he could forget all about LV and the war and just lose himself in something that he loved and was good at. It also gave him much needed confidence and admiration for something that he did on his own and not as 'The Boy Who Lived.' Harry needed Quiddich, it was his escape from a reality that must have been unbearable at times.

:agree: :tu: I agree, especially about the Quidditch bit. You have a good point, Eliza, when you say that injuries in the Wizarding World can be, in general, easily cured. The Sectumsempra curse was gruesome and horrible, sure, but kids attending a Wizarding school are used to seeing and constantly hearing about gruesome and horrible things- e.g. the pictures depicting awful deaths in Snape DADA classroom (even the first years would have had to have extremely hardened nerves to face those every week!) and Susan's splinching during the Apparation class. It doesn't make what Harry did to Draco any less irresponsible, but there is the fact that there was a good chance Draco would be just fine. Harry had been through his own fair share of ikky magical injuries, and therefore would, I'm sure have faith in Snape's and Madame Pomfrey's combined powers of healing by sixth year. Therefore, by the time Snape took away his Quidditch privileges, while I'm sure Harry was still deeply horrified by what he did, it isn't as if Draco was actually dead, and I'm sure Harry knew that there were excellent chances of recovery.

HBP, Sectumsepra[/B]
Harry was still watching horrified by what he had done, barely aware that he too was soaked in blood and water.

However, he seems to forget this very quickly when the his punishment affects his Quidditch. I agree with CC, he is a kid who lost perspective.

Of course he lost perspective. Who could keep perspective in that situation. He has just been attacked without provocation. Used a spell that horrifies him with the result. and he is being punished by the taking away of his main avenue of releasing the pressures on him. I would be surprised if he could have counted 1+1 and got 2 in the circumstances. And like Ginny I am very glad he had something good up his sleeve to protect himself with. Draco had already come very close to killing two innocent people. He was teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown and very, very dangerous. Loose cannon does not even begin to describe it.

In fact, Harry was so anxious to test out what the Sectumsempra did that he was thinking of trying it out on McLaggen:

HBP, p. 318 (American edition)Harry was about to put his book away when he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned "For Enemies," that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did, mainly because he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen next time he came up behind him unawares.

Thanks for pointing out that passage, ccollinsmith. :tu: :agree: That is a great point - Harry was just waiting for a chance to use that spell whether someone provoked him or not.

Draco had the dubious honor of being the victim of Sectumsempra, but of course he also overreacted to Harry finding him in the girl's restroom crying over the sink - an understandable reaction from a teenage boy, in my opinion. If Harry had taken a minute to think about it, he would have remembered Hermione in the same situation in Book One just before the Troll attack.

Thanks for pointing out that passage, ccollinsmith. :tu: :agree: That is a great point - Harry was just waiting for a chance to use that spell whether someone provoked him or not.

Draco had the dubious honor of being the victim of Sectumsempra, but of course he also overreacted to Harry finding him in the girl's restroom crying over the sink - an understandable reaction from a teenage boy, in my opinion. If Harry had taken a minute to think about it, he would have remembered Hermione in the same situation in Book One just before the Troll attack.

Not for anything but Malfoy was in the middle of a Cruciatus Curse...just too slow.

Thanks for pointing out that passage, ccollinsmith. :tu: :agree: That is a great point - Harry was just waiting for a chance to use that spell whether someone provoked him or not.

Draco had the dubious honor of being the victim of Sectumsepra, but of course he also overreacted to Harry finding him in the girl's restroom crying over the sink - an understandable reaction from a teenage boy, in my opinion. If Harry had taken a minute to think about it, he would have remembered Hermione in the same situation in Book One just before the Troll attack.

McLagglan was driving Harry up the wall, and if he had used the curse on him his lack of knowledge would have still stood. He had no reason to suspect the curse was so dangerous based on the other things Snape had written in the books. Of course Harry wanted to find out about the curse. At that time he was very admiring of what The Prince had written and his notes had proved so helpful that Harry used them to save Ron's life after he drank the poisoned wine that Draco had sent.
I don't think the rational thing to do when someone finds you crying is to attack them with a torture curse. That to my way of thinking is a definite overreaction. Draco was under pressure, he was learning first hand what Harry had been going through for years, that does not excuse his use of an Unforgivable Curse just because someone walked into the bathroom, a room used by all the students. If it had been Hermione, it does not bear thinking about.
Also, Harry did not have time to think of much before Draco attacked him.

I don't think the rational thing to do when someone finds you crying is to attack them with a torture curse. That to my way of thinking is a definite overreaction. Draco was under pressure, he was learning first hand what Harry had been going through for years, that does not excuse his use of an Unforgivable Curse just because someone walked into the bathroom, a room used by all the students. If it had been Hermione, it does not bear thinking about.
Also, Harry did not have time to think of much before Draco attacked him.

That is actually something of a misrepresentation of what happened. They were well into the battle before either one of them reached for the really devastating curses. Draco threw a hex when he discovered that Harry was watching him cry. Harry responded with a Levicorpus. Draco threw another hex. Harry threw a Leg-Locker that missed and got the water pouring everywhere. Draco started a Crucio, and Harry threw a Sectumsempra. The Sectumsempra was the first spell to hit its mark.

Harry had plenty of time to decide whether or not to reach for an unknown spell that he had every reason to assume was dangerous, given that it was labeled "For Enemies" in the Prince's book.

The only reason there was no lasting harm done is that the exact right person happened to come into the bathroom at exactly the right time. Otherwise, significantly more than lasting harm would have been done.

At any rate, I agree with McGonnagall's assessment of the punishment.

The only reason there was no lasting harm done is that the exact right person happened to come into the bathroom at exactly the right time. Otherwise, significantly more than lasting harm would have been done.

Yes, and that is because Snape had to save Draco's life or his own would be forfeit to the Unbreakable Vow. So there was more at stake than just Draco's life. Snape would have died, too, but he also wouldn't have been there to kill Dumbledore at the end of the book.

I don't think the rational thing to do when someone finds you crying is to attack them with a torture curse. That to my way of thinking is a definite overreaction.
Which is exactly what I wrote. :)

but of course he also overreacted


Draco was under pressure, he was learning first hand what Harry had been going through for years, that does not excuse his use of an Unforgivable Curse just because someone walked into the bathroom, a room used by all the students. If it had been Hermione, it does not bear thinking about.
I think Hermione would have had the sense to walk right back out again and leave Draco alone. JMO

ETA: Interestingly, Hermione is found by Luna Lovegood earlier in the book when she is crying over Ron. Luna tells Harry he thought it was Moaning Myrtle. So again, Harry should have had some pity since Draco is acting a great deal like Hermione.

Also that was not a bathroom that was used by other students. It was Moaning Myrtle's restroom which even the other girls didn't use. Harry only walks in because he has followed Draco with the Marauder's Map. Plus, this happens after Myrtle tells Harry and Ron that a boy has been crying in her bathroom.

Also, Harry did not have time to think of much before Draco attacked him.


Hmm, I think he did, actually, but Harry was so shocked that Draco was crying that he was "rooted to the spot." Of course that is a plot point because Harry needed to use the spell in order for Snape to come in and save Draco, foiling the certain death of the Unbreakable Vow.

"Don't," crooned Moaning Myrtle's voice from one of the cubicles. "Don't. . . tell me what's wrong ... I can help you. . . ."

"No one can help me," said Malfoy. His whole body was shaking. "I can't do it. ... I can't. ... It won't work . . . and unless 1 do it soon ... he says he'll kill me. ..."

And Harry realized, with a shock so huge it seemed to root him to the spot, that Malfoy was crying — actually crying — tears streaming down his pale face into the grimy basin. Malfoy gasped and gulped and then, with a great shudder, looked up into cracked mirror and saw Harry staring at him over his shoulder. Malfoy wheeled around, drawing his wand. Instinctively, Harry pulled out his own. Malfoy's hex missed Harry by inches, shattering the lamp on the wall beside him; Harry threw himself sideways, thought Levicorpus! and flicked his wand, but Malfoy blocked the jinx and raised his wand for another —

"No! No! Stop it!" squealed Moaning Myrtle, her voice echoing loudly around the tiled room. "Stop! STOP!"

There was a loud bang and the bin behind Harry exploded; Harry attempted a Leg-Locker Curse that backfired off the wall behind Malfoy's ear and smashed the cistern beneath Moaning Myrtle, who screamed loudly; water poured everywhere and Harry slipped as Malfoy, his face contorted, cried, "Cruci —"

"SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly.

Yes, and that is because Snape had to save Draco's life or his own would be forfeit to the Unbreakable Vow. So there was more at stake than just Draco's life. Snape would have died, too, but he also wouldn't have been there to kill Dumbledore at the end of the book.


Which is exactly what I wrote. :)





I think Hermione would have had the sense to walk right back out again and leave Draco alone. JMO

ETA: Interestingly, Hermione is found by Luna Lovegood earlier in the book when she is crying over Ron. Luna tells Harry he thought it was Moaning Myrtle. So again, Harry should have had some pity since Draco is acting a great deal like Hermione.

Also that was not a bathroom that was used by other students. It was Moaning Myrtle's restroom which even the other girls didn't use. Harry only walks in because he has followed Draco with the Marauder's Map. Plus, this happens after Myrtle tells Harry and Ron that a boy has been crying in her bathroom.



Hmm, I think he did, actually, but Harry was so shocked that Draco was crying that he was "rooted to the spot." Of course that is a plot point because Harry needed to use the spell in order for Snape to come in and save Draco, foiling the certain death of the Unbreakable Vow.

"Don't," crooned Moaning Myrtle's voice from one of the cubicles. "Don't. . . tell me what's wrong ... I can help you. . . ."

"No one can help me," said Malfoy. His whole body was shaking. "I can't do it. ... I can't. ... It won't work . . . and unless 1 do it soon ... he says he'll kill me. ..."

And Harry realized, with a shock so huge it seemed to root him to the spot, that Malfoy was crying — actually crying — tears streaming down his pale face into the grimy basin. Malfoy gasped and gulped and then, with a great shudder, looked up into cracked mirror and saw Harry staring at him over his shoulder. Malfoy wheeled around, drawing his wand. Instinctively, Harry pulled out his own. Malfoy's hex missed Harry by inches, shattering the lamp on the wall beside him; Harry threw himself sideways, thought Levicorpus! and flicked his wand, but Malfoy blocked the jinx and raised his wand for another —

"No! No! Stop it!" squealed Moaning Myrtle, her voice echoing loudly around the tiled room. "Stop! STOP!"

There was a loud bang and the bin behind Harry exploded; Harry attempted a Leg-Locker Curse that backfired off the wall behind Malfoy's ear and smashed the cistern beneath Moaning Myrtle, who screamed loudly; water poured everywhere and Harry slipped as Malfoy, his face contorted, cried, "Cruci —"

"SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly.

Yes, I was quoting you when I wrote overreaction.
Back to the Battle, with all of that going on, do you really think that anyone is going to stop and think about what spell to use. You act and react on instinct. This description, IMO reinforces what I posted, Harry reacted to Malfoy's attack. Moaning Myrtle or not it was still a public bathroom. Draco could not depend on no one coming in to witness his breakdown and I still say he was an extremely dangerous loose cannon. Which is probably why Snape was so close at hand, he knew how dangerous Draco was.
I don't know why Harry is being judged for fighting to protect himself the best way possible. He didn't go into the bathroom looking for a fight and yes, he did feel sorry for Draco. That did not mean he was going to stand there when Draco started to fire curses at him and do nothing.
Is the fact that he walked into the room a reason for attack? Is the fact that Draco was crying mean he should think about Hermione's upset in relation to that? He's a teenage boy, they don't think like that.

Back to the Battle, with all of that going on, do you really think that anyone is going to stop and think about what spell to use. You act and react on instinct.

Actually, one would think you would use the spells you know in a situation like that... not reach wildly to experiment with a spell you're merely obsessed with - having no idea what the outcome will be. :shrug:

I don't know why Harry is being judged for fighting to protect himself the best way possible.

Reaching for an unknown spell is not "fighting to protect yourself in the best way possible." Harry knew other spells that he actually understood the effects of, and he knew them a lot better than he knew Sectumsempra. In fact, he knew Expelliarmus - which had worked pretty well for him on other occasions and would have been more than sufficient to disarm Draco. But Sectumsempra was on his mind because he needed a guinea pig to test it out on.

At any rate, I'm not "judging" Harry any more harshly than his own Head of House does. McGonnagall told Harry that "she supported wholeheartedly Snape's punishment of detention every Saturday until the end of term." And I wholeheartedly agree. He's lucky, as McGonnagall tells him, that he wasn't expelled.

Actually, one would think you would use the spells you know in a situation like that... not reach wildly to experiment with a spell you're merely obsessed with - having no idea what the outcome will be. :shrug:



Reaching for an unknown spell is not "fighting to protect yourself in the best way possible." Harry knew other spells that he actually understood the effects of, and he knew them a lot better than he knew Sectumsepra. In fact, he knew Expelliarmus - which had worked pretty well for him on other occasions and would have been more than sufficient to disarm Draco. But Sectumsepra was on his mind because he needed a guinea pig to test it out on.

At any rate, I'm not "judging" Harry any more harshly than his own Head of House does. McGonagall told Harry that "she supported wholeheartedly Snape's punishment of detention every Saturday until the end of term." And I wholeheartedly agree. He's lucky, as McGonagall tells him, that he wasn't expelled.

But according to your description Harry used the curse finally, not to begin with. The spells used by both parties escalated in severity, and to reiterate, Harry didn't know what the spell would do. He only knew that everything else he had used by The Prince had done the job. I'm not excusing Harry, It was a terrible spell and he is quite rightly appalled, but it is not as cut and dried as bad Harry, poor Draco.
You are quite right about McGonagall backing up the detentions, but she didn't know the entire story. Harry didn't tell anyone about Draco's use of the Unforgivable right away and then it was too late. To tell the truth, I have always found McGonagall pretty deaf when it comes to fighting between the students. A little less with the detentions and a little more investigation into why the students were fighting in the first place might have served them and her a bit better.

But according to your description Harry used the curse finally, not to begin with. The spells used by both parties escalated in severity, and to reiterate, Harry didn't know what the spell would do. He only knew that everything else he had used by The Prince had done the job. I'm not excusing Harry, It was a terrible spell and he is quite rightly appalled, but it is not as cut and dried as bad Harry, poor Draco.
You are quite right about McGonagall backing up the detentions, but she didn't know the entire story. Harry didn't tell anyone about Draco's use of the Unforgivable right away and then it was too late. To tell the truth, I have always found McGonagall pretty deaf when it comes to fighting between the students. A little less with the detentions and a little more investigation into why the students were fighting in the first place might have served them and her a bit better.

Yes, the spells escalated in severity. And yes, Harry did not know what the spell would do (one reason it was a very bad idea to use it). And no, it's not as cut and dried as bad Harry and poor Draco. Never said it was.

But the fact remains that Harry nearly killed Draco. I can't excuse that. And if you're not excusing it either, then we can agree on that point. :)

It is a terrible spell, as you point out, and I'm glad Harry was appalled by it. I expect nothing less of him... because I do like Harry. It's because I like Harry that I find his use of the spell so upsetting.

As for McGonnagall, I think she would have backed up the detentions regardless of the whole story. If the whole story had come out, maybe both boys would have been punished. Or perhaps lying in a pool of his own blood and feeling his life ebb out of him might have been considered sufficient punishment for Draco. Regardless of the outcome for Draco, I'm pretty sure Harry would not have been let off, no matter what, given the gruesome results of the curse he threw. I strongly doubt ignorance of its effects would have been considered a convincing plea by anyone on the Hogwarts staff, including Dumbledore. :no:

As I said upthread, what I find most interesting about this scene is that (just as in the Dementor attack in Little Whinging), Harry comes to a recognition that he actually cares about one of his enemies. He instinctively saved his cousin from the Dementors. And here, even though it's a completely different scenario, Harry recognizes that Draco's death is not something he wants.

I think on some level Draco also recognizes this about Harry. If Draco had died, the last thing he would have seen would have been Harry bent over him screaming, "No! I didn't!" I personally think Harry's reaction to the Sectumsempra plays into Draco's lie at Malfoy Manor a year later when he refuses to identify Harry. I believe that something strangely intimate happens in this scene that ironically gives these two a strange bond that they've never had before.

It's the power of that image of Harry bending over Draco, hoping against hope that something will take back the curse, that makes me resist minimizing what Harry did in casting the spell. I think it diminishes Harry to come up with excuses for the Sectumsempra. This is a great moment of character development for Harry. And I don't want to rob him of it... even if he does his best to rob himself of it by arguing against the detentions. :yuhup:

As I said upthread, what I find most interesting about this scene is that (just as in the Dementor attack in Little Whinging), Harry comes to a recognition that he actually cares about one of his enemies. He instinctively saved his cousin from the Dementors. And here, even though it's a completely different scenario, Harry recognizes that Draco's death is not something he wants.

I think on some level Draco also recognizes this about Harry. If Draco had died, the last thing he would have seen would have been Harry bent over him screaming, "No! I didn't!" I personally think Harry's reaction to the Sectumsempra plays into Draco's lie at Malfoy Manor a year later when he refuses to identify Harry. I believe that something strangely intimate happens in this scene that ironically gives these two a strange bond that they've never had before.

Very well put. :agree: I still tend to disagree with you about other aspects of the scene, but I think we've both talked about that enough. ;) However, your summary of the emotional aspects of the incident was very well put, and I completely agree with you on that.

Also that was not a bathroom that was used by other students. It was Moaning Myrtle's restroom which even the other girls didn't use. Harry only walks in because he has followed Draco with the Marauder's Map. Plus, this happens after Myrtle tells Harry and Ron that a boy has been crying in her bathroom.
[/I]

That is incorrect - the passage says: Harry made his usual detour along the seventh-floor corridor, checking the Marauder's Map as he went. For a moment he could not find Malfoy anywhere, and assumed he must indeed be inside the Room of Requirement again, but then he saw Malfoy's tiny, labelled dot standing in a boys' bathroom on the floor below, accompanied, not by Crabbe or Goyle, but by Moaning Myrtle.

Bolding and underlines are mine. Too many have thought it was Myrtle's bathroom. It is a common mistake. Why was Draco way up on the sixth-floor? Just came from the RoR?

That is incorrect - the passage says: Harry made his usual detour along the seventh-floor corridor, checking the Marauder's Map as he went. For a moment he could not find Malfoy anywhere, and assumed he must indeed be inside the Room of Requirement again, but then he saw Malfoy's tiny, labelled dot standing in a boys' bathroom on the floor below, accompanied, not by Crabbe or Goyle, but by Moaning Myrtle.

Bolding and underlines are mine. Too many have thought it was Myrtle's bathroom. It is a common mistake. Why was Draco way up on the sixth-floor? Just came from the RoR?
Thanks for the correction - you're right. I was just making the point that Harry didn't just walk in on Draco, but was following his dot on the map.

You are quite right about McGonagall backing up the detentions, but she didn't know the entire story. Harry didn't tell anyone about Draco's use of the Unforgivable right away and then it was too late. To tell the truth, I have always found McGonagall pretty deaf when it comes to fighting between the students. A little less with the detentions and a little more investigation into why the students were fighting in the first place might have served them and her a bit better.

Considering that Minerva found Harry's use of the Crucio spell to be "gallant" in DH, she might not be that surprised that Draco had tried to use one. :whistle:

Very well put. :agree: I still tend to disagree with you about other aspects of the scene, but I think we've both talked about that enough. ;) However, your summary of the emotional aspects of the incident was very well put, and I completely agree with you on that.

Yay! Peace. :huggles:

We can disagree about other aspects of the scene. But I think now you know where I'm coming from.

I think for Harry it was also showing a sense of freedom. Harry was brought up in a household where he could not ask questions; not even about his parents; he had not seen their photos until he was 11 and at Hogwarts (was it at the end of the year, when Hagrid gave the photo album to Harry?); he could not show his anger, resentment or any other feeling or emotion to any of the Dursleys. I think once he reached Hogwarts, a little (not much) but a little of all that pent up emotion spilled out, in anger mostly.

Well after the i don't know how many row with someone it gets old.And most of the time he has no reason to be angry.btw about the poll why are only good things mentioned.His most important behaviour trait is bravery and being extremely lucky.one of the secondary ones is anger.

btw about the poll why are only good things mentioned.Because the poll is about his strengths, not his weaknesses. :)

Kindly note that while we appreciate feedback, the threads in the discussion forums are not the right place for it. We have a whole forum for feedback. Here (http://www.cosforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=136). Questions about the forums can also be asked by owl to any staff member.

Because the poll is about his strengths, not his weaknesses. :)

Shame cause everyone's character consists of good and bad sides.We are allowed to talk about those too aren't we?

Shame cause everyone's character consists of good and bad sides.We are allowed to talk about those too aren't we?Of course you are allowed to talk about bad sides. The topic of this thread is character analysis as stated in the name of the thread. The poll is not to be considered a restriction of the topic.

Yay! Peace. :huggles:

We can disagree about other aspects of the scene. But I think now you know where I'm coming from.

I agree as well. The emotional aspect of the scene is actually what stayed with from my reading of it. I will confess that I just glanced over it before I did my first post. I think it was the negative aspects of the posts that really pushed me into posting in the first place last night.

Original post by SilverInkPot:
Considering that Minerva found Harry's use of the Crucio spell to be "gallant" in DH, she might not be that surprised that Draco had tried to use one.

I think she found it gallant that Harry would defend her against such a nasty speciman who was also threatening the innocent Ravenclaw students. Why would that have anything to with Draco's actions a year before? What does Harry's actions one year later, have to do with Draco's in that bathroom?

I think she found it gallant that Harry would defend her against such a nasty speciman who was also threatening the innocent Ravenclaw students. Why would that have anything to with Draco's actions a year before? What does Harry's actions one year later, have to do with Draco's in that bathroom?

Because you had implied that McGonagall might have punished Draco for using Crucio if Harry had spoken up in time:

Harry didn't tell anyone about Draco's use of the Unforgivable right away and then it was too late. To tell the truth, I have always found McGonagall pretty deaf when it comes to fighting between the students.

I don't think McGonagall would have punished him, and I think there's a reason why in terms of the balance between Draco and Harry in the story and throughout the series.The series is hopefully connected enough that things are carried over from one book to another. At least that's how I see the series. Plus JKR said HBP and DH were actually two halves of one story, and I think that's a helpful way to view the two books.

So . . . As a plot point in the series, if Minerva had punished Draco for Crucio in HBP, and then called Harry "gallant" for using the same spell in DH, it really would have been hypocritical, and I doubt the author wanted her to come across that way.

The way it turned out, Harry is never punished for trying Crucio several times on Bella, Snape, and Carrow, and Draco isn't punished for trying to use it on Harry or being forced to do it on a DE at Voldemort's bidding. So the two characters balance each other out. I'm not saying it was a good thing for either of them, and probably both of them should have been punished, but in the microcosm of the books, it makes sense that they weren't.

I think she found it gallant that Harry would defend her against such a nasty speciman who was also threatening the innocent Ravenclaw students. Why would that have anything to with Draco's actions a year before? What does Harry's actions one year later, have to do with Draco's in that bathroom?

I don't think that either the author or the readers can have it both ways. Either casting the Torture Curse is acceptable or it is not, no matter how great the provocation or whoever is casting it. I can totally understand Harry wanting to defend Minerva but in my opinion, the author merrily breaks her own rules here. Which means that the Unforgivables are not Unforgivables, after all. Because we see the hero of the saga using two Unforgivables in DH. Which means that they are both forgivable and, in extreme cases, acceptable.


Consistency in an imaginary world. I love it. ;)

Therefore I agree with Ignisia ... as I so often do. :rockon:

In my opinion, both Harry and Draco are equally culpable in That Scene. Draco was horrendously wrong to try to cast a Crucio at Harry. Harry was horrendously wrong -- and spectacularly stupid -- to cast an extremely violent and potentially lethal spell at Draco, the effects of which he knew nothing about.

Harry does show remorse for his actions in wounding Draco ... but to be honest, I really wish that Rowling had shown him showing more remorse. I love Harry dearly, but this truly bugs me. In relation to this scene with Draco, specifically.

And I hope that's enough Harry for his thread. :D :)

[QUOTE=silver ink pot;5496244]Because you had implied that McGonagall might have punished Draco for using Crucio if Harry had spoken up in time:

I don't think I implied that McGonagall would have punished Draco, rather I was implying McGonagall would have perhaps been better to ask why Harry did his best to kill Draco. It's not like Harry went around the school attempting murder all the time and I think it might have been nice for her to at least been curious as to why Draco was lying in a pool of his own blood. I would have been curious as to Harry's motives, if only so that steps could be taken so it would not happen again. Harry deserved his punishments. That fact is as plain as day, an investigation into such a serious matter should also have been as plain as day, especially as there had been 2 very serious murder attempts already. One on Ron and the other on Katie Bell. To just hand out detentions to Harry seems to me to be very careless. At least I think it would have seemed that way in Harry's eyes. Also I don't think sackcloth and ashes was a look that would have suited Harry.



I don't think McGonagall would have punished him, and I think there's a reason why in terms of the balance between Draco and Harry in the story and throughout the series.The series is hopefully connected enough that things are carried over from one book to another. At least that's how I see the series. Plus JKR said HBP and DH were actually two halves of one story, and I think that's a helpful way to view the two books.

I hope I answered this above. I look on the series as one continuing story, but I am not a protagonist in the story, Harry is.

So . . . As a plot point in the series, if Minerva had punished Draco for Crucio in HBP, and then called Harry "gallant" for using the same spell in DH, it really would have been hypocritical, and I doubt the author wanted her to come across that way.

I have stated above it was not Draco's punishment that I meant to highlight. My question at this point still holds but I will expand.
What does the 2 incidents have to do with each other? On one hand we have a serious assault on a student, when they are both still students at the school and underage and on the other we have an assault on a sadistic monster who has just threatened innocents students with death and spat at McGonagall by a Harry who at this time gone beyond McGonagall's disciplinary remit? They are parts of the same story, but have nothing to do with each other.

The way it turned out, Harry is never punished for trying Crucio several times on Bella, Snape, and Carrow, and Draco isn't punished for trying to use it on Harry or being forced to do it on a DE at Voldemort's bidding. So the two characters balance each other out. I'm not saying it was a good thing for either of them, and probably both of them should have been punished, but in the microcosm of the books, it makes sense that they weren't

I'm sorry but IMO each of these incidents are different. They all have different motivations and outcomes and each of them have to be judged on their own and not bundled together for convince.

Original post by Pearl Took:
I don't think that either the author or the readers can have it both ways. Either casting the Torture Curse is acceptable or it is not, no matter how great the provocation or whoever is casting it. I can totally understand Harry wanting to defend Minerva but in my opinion, the author merrily breaks her own rules here. Which means that the Unforgivables are not Unforgivables, after all. Because we see the hero of the saga using two Unforgivables in DH. Which means that they are both forgivable and, in extreme cases, acceptable.


Consistency in an imaginary world. I love it.

Therefore I agree with Ignisia ... as I so often do.

In my opinion, both Harry and Draco are equally culpable in That Scene. Draco was horrendously wrong to try to cast a Crucio at Harry. Harry was horrendously wrong -- and spectacularly stupid -- to cast an extremely violent and potentially lethal spell at Draco, the effects of which he knew nothing about.

Harry does show remorse for his actions in wounding Draco ... but to be honest, I really wish that Rowling had shown him showing more remorse. I love Harry dearly, but this truly bugs me. In relation to this scene with Draco, specifically.


Pearl, it's not that I disagree with you on principal. On principal the Crutiatus Curse is despicable and should never be used. Unfortunately the genie was let out of the bottle and Harry did learn it. He was then in situations where he thought that the use of the curse was justified. He was in those situations because of the actions of the adults around him. He was not in the right to use them and every time he did I got a very queasy feeling in my stomach. But I am not going to say that he was behaving in a monstrous manner for the love of it, he was fighting in a war and using every weapon available to him. Was he wrong, yes he was. But at the time he had motive and reasons. You and I might think those reasons were not justified, but he did not.

Pearl, it's not that I disagree with you on principal. On principal the Crutiatus Curse is despicable and should never be used. Unfortunately the genie was let out of the bottle and Harry did learn it. He was then in situations where he thought that the use of the curse was justified. He was in those situations because of the actions of the adults around him. He was not in the right to use them and every time he did I got a very queasy feeling in my stomach. But I am not going to say that he was behaving in a monstrous manner for the love of it, he was fighting in a war and using every weapon available to him. Was he wrong, yes he was. But at the time he had motive and reasons. You and I might think those reasons were not justified, but he did not.

Harry is a warrior and acts like one when he has to if people want him to stay clean he should have become a priest.Besides we can see how he verbally lashes out at people sometimes so its not surprising he does the same less verbally when he feels the need.For once he is right too.
Besides he is a combination of bravery and aggression and thiis was the result.

I don't think that either the author or the readers can have it both ways. Either casting the Torture Curse is acceptable or it is not, no matter how great the provocation or whoever is casting it. I can totally understand Harry wanting to defend Minerva but in my opinion, the author merrily breaks her own rules here. Which means that the Unforgivables are not Unforgivables, after all. Because we see the hero of the saga using two Unforgivables in DH. Which means that they are both forgivable and, in extreme cases, acceptable.


This is something I just wanted to throw out here for consideration; I'm not disagreeing with you at all. :) Both times Harry uses an Unforgivable in DH, the spells are no longer illegal or technically Unforgivable according to the establishment at the time- on the contrary, these three curses, formerly known as Unforgivable, are now in favored use by those running the government. I know this a weak argument, and I'm not trying to justify Harry's use of the Unforgivables by it, but surely the opposite argument isn't all that much stronger- that the Unforgivable curses are somehow more wrong and more evil than other offensive spells simply because the Ministry has singled them out as such. In fact, all we ever really hear is that the Ministry has condemned the spells, and that they automatic become Unforgivable. However, I don't see why this should make these three particular spells inherently evil, while the use of other, often equally horrible, offensive spells are left to the individual Wizard's discretion. So do you guys think it was inherently wrong for Harry to employ an Unforgivable, even when it was no longer illegal to to so? Are the Unforgivables somehow "more evil" than other spells because the Ministry condemned them as such? Thoughts?

BTW I highly doubt whether Harry was considering the current legal status of the two Unforgivables when he employed them. I'd be surprised if he was. :p And I think it was still as wrong for him to use Crucio as it was to use Sectumsempra in the previous book- the question is, was it more wrong because the no-longer-existent Ministry said it was?

What does the 2 incidents have to do with each other? On one hand we have a serious assault on a student, when they are both still students at the school and underage and on the other we have an assault on a sadistic monster who has just threatened innocents students with death and spat at McGonagall by a Harry who at this time gone beyond McGonagall's disciplinary remit? They are parts of the same story, but have nothing to do with each other.
I just disagree, Eliza. They are both instances when Harry uses an overkill spell on someone he dislikes. Sectumsempra is unintentionally harsh, but the scene with Carrow is worse because Harry admits to himself that he enjoys doing a Crucio just as Bellatrix did.

I don't see how that can be justified in any way and I agree with Pearl that it is disturbing and pushes Harry across a line I wish we didn't have in the canon.

But as I wrote in my previous posts, it only makes sense to me personally in terms of making Harry and Draco more equal in terms of the bad things they've done. So in some ways Harry is no better than Draco because they each did bad things during a war because they felt forced into a corner. It wasn't right, but it does make them equally in the wrong, and I would hope equally repentant when they are older - which I think is hinted at in the Epilogue when again they are in the same place, both fathers who love their children. That's my interpretation and the only way I can justify JKR's letting Harry doing a Crucio, but I'm not that happy with it.

[QUOTE=silver ink pot;5496287]I just disagree, Eliza. They are both instances when Harry uses an overkill spell on someone he dislikes. Sectumsepra is unintentionally harsh, but the scene with Carrow is worse because Harry admits to himself that he enjoys doing a Crucio just as Bellatrix did.

It seems that we are splitting hairs here so I am going back to the original text:

Amycus moved forward until he was offensively close to Professor McGonagall,
his face within inches of hers. She refused to back away, but looked down
at him as if he were something disgusting she had found stuck to a lavatory
seat.
“It’s not a case of what you’ll permit, Minerva McGonagall. You time’s over.
It’s us what’s in charge here now, and you’ll back me up or you’ll pay the price.”
And he spat in her face.
Harry pulled the Cloak off himself, raised his wand, and said, “You shouldn't
have done that.”
As Amycus spun around, Harry shouted, “Crucio!”
The Death Eater was lifted off his feet. He writhed through the air like a
drowning man, thrashing and howling in pain, and then, with a crunch and
a shattering of glass, he smashed into the front of a bookcase and crumpled,
insensible, to the floor.
“I see what Bellatrix meant,” said Harry, the blood thundering through his
brain, “you need to really mean it.” JK Rowling, Deathly Hallows

Two thing jump out at me,

1) How truly horrendous and threatening Carrow is being. He means to blame the students and McGonagall for his mistakes. He is threatening her and the students with torture and death and he means to carry the threats out.
2) Harry does not get enjoyment out of using the Curse, he simply means to disable Carrow and he does.

I don't see how that can be justified in any way and I agree with Pearl that it is disturbing and pushes Harry across a line I wish we didn't have in the canon.

It is never pleasant to face the fact that sometimes people do unpleasant or even terrible things under certain circumstances. In this case I think Harry genuinely wanted Carrow to feel exactly what he was so good at threatening people with. No, it's not pleasant reading, but it is all too human.

But as I wrote in my previous posts, it only makes sense to me personally in terms of making Harry and Draco more equal in terms of the bad things they've done. So in some ways Harry is no better than Draco because they each did bad things during a war because they felt forced into a corner. It wasn't right, but it does make them equally in the wrong, and I would hope equally repentant when they are older - which I think is hinted at in the Epilogue when again they are in the same place, both fathers who love their children. That's my interpretation and the only way I can justify JKR's letting Harry doing a Crucio, but I'm not that happy with it.

The problem with this as far as I am concerned is that Draco is in the wrong and Harry is not. Draco was trying to kill DD, he didn't care who he killed to do that. The only reason he was in that bathroom was he was upset he didn't succeed. To put that motive against Harry's main motive throughout all the books is not balancing any kind of scales. What drives Draco IMO is his prejudices and fear. What drives Harry is the urge to save the WW from horror.
IMO, this tips the scales very heavily on Harry's side. I feel sorry for Draco for being the bigoted idiot that he is, I admire Harry for putting his life on the line. I also think that Draco has good reason to be grateful to Harry and that is the reason for the exchange at the realroad station. Draco and his father did not go to Azkaban, I imagine that if Harry had pushed they would have.

No, Harry is not perfect, but he learns from his mistakes. And one lesson learned is to fight hard with every weapon at your disposal. He learned that one from Lupin.

Harry used the Cruciatus Curse because Amycus spit in McGonagall's face. That was completely unnecessary. There were a myriad of spells he could have used, but he decided to let the hate he felt at that moment overcome him. Like Bellatrix said, righteous anger won't do it, you really have to enjoy causing someone pain.


You need to really want to cause pain — to enjoy it — righteous anger won't hurt me for long — I'll show you how it is done, shall I? I'll give you a lesson — Crucio!" - Bellatrix, Order of the Phoenix


So when Harry said he understood what Bellatrix meant, I took it to mean he enjoyed causing pain, not that he wanted to teach Amycus a lesson.

From what I gather, the crucial point about the current issue isn't whether Harry was in any way justified to use an Unforgivable. The issue is that he used it and what that says about him and Unforgivable curses. As I see it, we should differentiate between his act and our moral judgement. Since these curses are labelled Unforgivable, yet used by the protagonist several times, it has become questionable if they are unforgivable. The message JKR tried to sent here is, in my opinion, corrupted because she drew lines between the good guys and the bad guys and then blurred them in HBP and DH.

For me personally, the use of an Unforgivable is not morally excusable just because the character at which it is directed is a bad character. Carrow is one of the most despicable characters in the book. But I didn't like that Harry stooped down to his level and used an Unforgivable on him and, in my view, it's just not okay. But that's my moral judgement. Within the context of the book, Harry had reason to use the curse. Within the context of the book, it seemed acceptable, since none of his friends and mentors, usually grouped with morally good people, protested.

On principal the Crutiatus Curse is despicable and should never be used.

This is far more than "despicable". I can't quote it now, not having my books here, but I believe in GoF the fake Moody says that every use of the Unforgivables is severely punished by the wizarding law (and the Aurors, during the war, have to obtain a special license to use them). That's my problem with Hary using these curses in DH. Are they really so terrible and unforgivable, or not? In DH, they seem just another way of getting what you want. :rolleyes:

From what I gather, the crucial point about the current issue isn't whether Harry was in any way justified to use an Unforgivable. The issue is that he used it and what that says about him and Unforgivable curses. As I see it, we should differentiate between his act and our moral judgement. Since these curses are labelled Unforgivable, yet used by the protagonist several times, it has become questionable if they are unforgivable. The message JKR tried to sent here is, in my opinion, corrupted because she drew lines between the good guys and the bad guys and then blurred them in HBP and DH.

For me personally, the use of an Unforgivable is not morally excusable just because the character at which it is directed is a bad character. Carrow is one of the most despicable characters in the book. But I didn't like that Harry stooped down to his level and used an Unforgivable on him and, in my view, it's just not okay. But that's my moral judgement. Within the context of the book, Harry had reason to use the curse. Within the context of the book, it seemed acceptable, since none of his friends and mentors, usually grouped with morally good people, protested.

I sort of agree with you here. But what can we do? The books are written the way they are written. The lines are blurred. They seem to switch between what is morally repugnant and what is acceptable behaviour in war. I hesitate to condemn Harry completely because it does seem to me that the goal posts have been moved. Is this a problem with the writing or am I missing something? I have read and reread the books. Everytime this problem rears it's ugly head and I can't condemn Harry because in the books, the world he lives in does not comdemn him.

This is something I just wanted to throw out here for consideration; I'm not disagreeing with you at all. :) Both times Harry uses an Unforgivable in DH, the spells are no longer illegal or technically Unforgivable according to the establishment at the time- on the contrary, these three curses, formerly known as Unforgivable, are now in favored use by those running the government. I know this a weak argument, and I'm not trying to justify Harry's use of the Unforgivables by it, but surely the opposite argument isn't all that much stronger- that the Unforgivable curses are somehow more wrong and more evil than other offensive spells simply because the Ministry has singled them out as such. In fact, all we ever really hear is that the Ministry has condemned the spells, and that they automatic become Unforgivable. However, I don't see why this should make these three particular spells inherently evil, while the use of other, often equally horrible, offensive spells are left to the individual Wizard's discretion. So do you guys think it was inherently wrong for Harry to employ an Unforgivable, even when it was no longer illegal to to so? Are the Unforgivables somehow "more evil" than other spells because the Ministry condemned them as such? Thoughts?

BTW I highly doubt whether Harry was considering the current legal status of the two Unforgivables when he employed them. I'd be surprised if he was. :p And I think it was still as wrong for him to use Crucio as it was to use Sectumsempra in the previous book- the question is, was it more wrong because the no-longer-existent Ministry said it was?

I've responded on the "Questions about Unforgivable Curses (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5496381#post5496381)" thread.

I think there are so many great questions we can discuss about the Unforgivables alone that we might want to use a thread dedicated to the Unforgivables. :)

I've responded on the "Questions about Unforgivable Curses (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5496381#post5496381)" thread.
That's a good idea. :tu:

Bringing something else up that I noticed about Harry. In OotP we see that Harry dosn't like what he sees in Snape's Worst memory. He hates that his dad used random spells on Snape and taunted him for no reason. I think somewhat without realizing it, Harry does the same thing in HBP.

"Harry had attempted a few of the Prince's self-invented spells. There had been a hex that caused toenails to grow alarmingly fast (he had tried this on Crabbe in the corridor, with very entertaining results); a jinx that glued the tongue to the roof of the mouth (which he had twice used, to general applause, on an unsuspecting Argus Filch)..."

Probably not as bad as James, but Harry had no idea what these spells did before using them. The "general applause" he got using the jinx sounds a bit like James...

This is something of a can of worms around here, but that also concerned me: it was a lot like James, since much of it was unprovoked and supported by the general student population.

Unlike, James, though, we do get a scene where Harry is faced with the consequences of testing spells on people, which is something we do not see James faced with. Harry seemed to learn from his mistakes, and the next time he attempts the Prince's spells, it is in a dangerous situation (inferi) or when he is enraged over DD's death (which is less OK, but it has a reason).

Bringing something else up that I noticed about Harry. In OotP we see that Harry dosn't like what he sees in Snape's Worst memory. He hates that his dad used random spells on Snape and taunted him for no reason. I think somewhat without realizing it, Harry does the same thing in HBP.

"Harry had attempted a few of the Prince's self-invented spells. There had been a hex that caused toenails to grow alarmingly fast (he had tried this on Crabbe in the corridor, with very entertaining results); a jinx that glued the tongue to the roof of the mouth (which he had twice used, to general applause, on an unsuspecting Argus Filch)..."

Probably not as bad as James, but Harry had no idea what these spells did before using them. The "general applause" he got using the jinx sounds a bit like James...

I have no problem with OotP Harry, with all his anger and yelling and angsting. I have every problem with Harry behaving like this. :no: Filch was a Squib, for heaven's sake! It wasn't like Harry was picking on an equal. :grumble: And Harry is now the Quidditch Captain and supposed to be more responsible. :rolleyes:

(To be honest, a lot of the kids behave very badly in HBP -- that book is also Hermione's low point. :yuhup: )

Fortunately, this is mitigated by the following:

Unlike, James, though, we do get a scene where Harry is faced with the consequences of testing spells on people, which is something we do not see James faced with. Harry seemed to learn from his mistakes, and the next time he attempts the Prince's spells, it is in a dangerous situation (inferi) or when he is enraged over DD's death (which is less OK, but it has a reason).

I agree. :cool:

@ Harry Crucio :: I think Harry's Crucio was in the middle of a war and I believe in a war, the lines between moral and otherwise seem so blurred that at times they are non-existent. I think Harry's spells at Crabbe and Goyle more dubious and wrong than his Crucio or his Imperius (in Gringotts) IMO.

@ Harry Crucio :: I think Harry's Crucio was in the middle of a war and I believe in a war, the lines between moral and otherwise seem so blurred that at times they are non-existent. I think Harry's spells at Crabbe and Goyle more dubious and wrong than his Crucio or his Imperius (in Gringotts) IMO.

I'll answer in this thread:
http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5497392#post5497392

Hi all 1st post hope to add some intelligent thought to this conversation.

This is in response to whether or not it was justified in Harry using unforgivable spells.

We men have this thing called testosterone, and it kicks in when boiling points of temper are breached. Lets face it, up to the point of cursing the Carrows Harry has not had the best year. Harry had also discovered the awful crimes the Carrows have been committing to his friends at Hogwarts.

Now we have McGonagal (excuse my spelling), who might has well be a like a grandma figure to Harry. After Harry has not seen her for a year due to saving the world, the first encounter he has with her is some thug Death Eater spitting in her face right after she finishes defending HP. I do not know about yall but if someone did that to someone I loved deeply I would want to beat the living dung out of them. If Harry was the perfect role model, bright knight in shining armor that everyone wants him to be perceived as then sure, he could have stunned him. But he is a human being and a teenager at that, I feel like he was justified in giving that ***** what he deserved.

I do not feel like I need to justify the CC on Bellatrix. Quite honestly I am surprised he didnt fire an AK at her.

Hi all 1st post hope to add some intelligent thought to this conversation.

This is in response to whether or not it was justified in Harry using unforgivable spells.

We men have this thing called testosterone, and it kicks in when boiling points of temper are breached. Lets face it, up to the point of cursing the Carrows Harry has not had the best year. Harry had also discovered the awful crimes the Carrows have been committing to his friends at Hogwarts.

Now we have McGonagal (excuse my spelling), who might has well be a like a grandma figure to Harry. After Harry has not seen her for a year due to saving the world, the first encounter he has with her is some thug Death Eater spitting in her face right after she finishes defending HP. I do not know about yall but if someone did that to someone I loved deeply I would want to beat the living dung out of them. If Harry was the perfect role model, bright knight in shining armor that everyone wants him to be perceived as then sure, he could have stunned him. But he is a human being and a teenager at that, I feel like he was justified in giving that ***** what he deserved.

I do not feel like I need to justify the CC on Bellatrix. Quite honestly I am surprised he didnt fire an AK at her.


SMH. Testosterone is just an excuse that guys use to act like idiots and not get in trouble. Harry was indeed capable of controlling himself and he didn't. I understand that Harry is human and we all make mistakes; that is why I don't think that badly of him for using the Curse. But that does not change the fact that he used a Curse which is pretty much always unnecessary for a simple act like spitting in someone's face. McGonagall was not hurt by what the Carrow did, I'm sure she had a handkerchief. Other characters have been in similar situations and did not resort to that.

SMH. Testosterone is just an excuse that guys use to act like idiots and not get in trouble. Harry was indeed capable of controlling himself and he didn't. I understand that Harry is human and we all make mistakes; that is why I don't think that badly of him for using the Curse. But that does not change the fact that he used a Curse which is pretty much always unnecessary for a simple act like spitting in someone's face. McGonagall was not hurt by what the Carrow did, I'm sure she had a handkerchief. Other characters have been in similar situations and did not resort to that.

I can understand your point of view and respect it, but seeing as I am a male we tend to react different to these situations but not always for the best. :whistle:

For someone like Carrow to spit in the face of such a respected and wise witch shows a very high degree of disrespect. I think spitting in her face would have been more insulting than right out cursing her. And as I also mentioned McGonagall had just finished defending Harry and taking pride in having him under her house which is only going to amplify his emotions. Again put your self in Harry's position. If someone you despise spit in the face of someone you love than its almost automatic you will do something extreme to avenge that person, unless you are very passive. Again these are all thoughts from a guy's perspective and testosterone is a legitimate excuse. No disrespect to any females.

I can understand your point of view and respect it, but seeing as I am a male we tend to react different to these situations but not always for the best. :whistle:

For someone like Carrow to spit in the face of such a respected and wise witch shows a very high degree of disrespect. I think spitting in her face would have been more insulting than right out cursing her. And as I also mentioned McGonagall had just finished defending Harry and taking pride in having him under her house which is only going to amplify his emotions. Again put your self in Harry's position. If someone you despise spit in the face of someone you love than its almost automatic you will do something extreme to avenge that person, unless you are very passive. Again these are all thoughts from a guy's perspective and testosterone is a legitimate excuse. No disrespect to any females.

I have been in worse situations than watching someone I respect get spat on. I don't think it's fair to say that this is just how a guy reacts;There are other men and boys in the story who exercise more control. Think of Snape, he had to watch Voldemort kill people but he never used the Cruciatus curse on anyone. Think of the way Draco insulted Molly and Author in OotP infront of Ron, Fred and George. In fact, Draco even insulted Lily in front of Harry and he didn't even pull out his wand then; he just used his fists. I understand his behavior, but that does not make it excusable.

Testosterone does not make for a license to violence.

Whether to not Harry's reaction was justified should be decided as a issue of morality and chosen behavoir, not his bio-chemical make up. This argument is about as rational as saying that Molly killing Bella was a "feminine" response due to a swing in her levels of estrogen. Neither response had to do with their gender.

I have been in worse situations than watching someone I respect get spat on. I don't think it's fair to say that this is just how a guy reacts;There are other men and boys in the story who exercise more control. Think of Snape, he had to watch Voldemort kill people but he never used the Cruciatus curse on anyone. Think of the way Draco insulted Molly and Author in OotP infront of Ron, Fred and George. In fact, Draco even insulted Lily in front of Harry and he didn't even pull out his wand then; he just used his fists. I understand his behavior, but that does not make it excusable.

Draco was expected to act like a moron because he had lost his 3rd match in a row to Harry. And had Madam Pomprey not jinxed Harry, I am willing to bet Malfoy would have been in a worse state then a cruciatus curse. And of course he is not about to use an unforgivable curse on another student right in front of the entire school staff over a game. But maybe on a terrible person, who had tortured his friends all year, possibly killed others, attempted to kill Ginny (HBP), and disrespected his Head of house. You better believe Carrow had that coming. Honestly I am glad they gave Harry a few moments like that, because it shows he has some skin and is not afraid to put people in their place. Righteous revenge is a beautiful thing.

As far as Snape goes you are comparing one of the strongest wizzards of the age with lots of experience to Harry Potter, a 17yr old wizard. I am willing to bet when Snape was in that age fresh out of school and a death eater he did some terrible things.

( I realize these post may seem a little devils advocate but someone has to speak up)

Draco was expected to act like a moron because he had lost his 3rd match in a row to Harry. And had Madam Pomprey not jinxed Harry, I am willing to bet Malfoy would have been in a worse state then a cruciatus curse. And of course he is not about to use an unforgivable curse on another student right in front of the entire school staff over a game. But maybe on a terrible person, who had tortured his friends all year, possibly killed others, attempted to kill Ginny (HBP), and disrespected his Head of house. You better believe Carrow had that coming. Honestly I am glad they gave Harry a few moments like that, because it shows he has some skin and is not afraid to put people in their place. Righteous revenge is a beautiful thing.

As far as Snape goes you are comparing one of the strongest wizzards of the age with lots of experience to Harry Potter, a 17yr old wizard. I am willing to bet when Snape was in that age fresh out of school and a death eater he did some terrible things.

( I realize these post may seem a little devils advocate but someone has to speak up)

There's nothing to "speak up" about. Harry was wrong. He did something that is completely understandable and his actions are still wrong.

There's nothing to "speak up" about. Harry was wrong. He did something that is completely understandable and his actions are still wrong.

I feel like we can go at this all day:lol:

I am glad we can agree that its understandable but I will still stand that it was right, Carrow deserved that. Even McGonagall agreed it was "Very valiant"!

Testosterone does not make for a license to violence.

Whether to not Harry's reaction was justified should be decided as a issue of morality and chosen behavoir, not his bio-chemical make up. This argument is about as rational as saying that Molly killing Bella was a "feminine" response due to a swing in her levels of estrogen. Neither response had to do with their gender.

If you believe that Molly was a better duelist than Bella and that her emotions/motherly response had nothing to do with it than I will have to strongly disagree, its a mothers nature to protect their children. Estrogen is an uncomfortable topic for me to be discussing but are you saying that it has no effect on extreme emotions? Testosterone is not the only reason but for men, when you cross the line, testosterone takes over reason and Carrow was doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Actually, McG called it "gallant", which I took to mean in this case "displaying chivalrous attention towards women" (specifically, McG herself, who had just been insulted by Carrow). I would not call attacking a single, outnumbered opponent from concealment particularly brave (though quite sensible. :tu: )

Personally, I neither agree that "righteous revenge is a beautiful thing", nor that Harry/the author of the series would agree it is. In my opinion, an absolutely key moment in the book was when Harry, after seeing the state of Voldemort's soul in "King's Cross", offered him a chance to surrender in ther final confrontation. In particular, to my mind that entire scene proves that Harry can overcome hormonal urges towards needless violence.

As I understand it, Unforgivables are given that name by no coincidence, and it's not Unforgivables-Unless-You-Have-A-Good-Reason. Torture is no less wrng when done by "our" side.

Righteous revenge is a beautiful thing.
That is a matter of opinion. I happen to think revenge is a negative action fuelled by negative emotions.

As for Harry, one of his character flaws is his anger, and I think it was out of anger that he cast the Crucio on Carrow. I would agree that his anger is perfectly understandable in the situation, however that doesn't justify his action. If that was the case, people would be able to get away with behaving violently simply on the basis that they were justifiably angry. So, I see Harry being in the wrong in this instance. That fact that Harry is capable of doing wrong makes his character all the more believable to me.

It is my opinion that one strand in Harry's story is the development of his prejudice against Slytherin House and his subsequent losing of it, an important step in his maturation. It is very subtly, almost imperceptibly written, to where it is possible for readers to feel that Harry's Epilogue comments to little Al Sev about the House are coming out of the blue.

I just noticed a contrast of two scenes in DH and how Harry thought about them, as an instance of this development in Harry.

In "Kreacher's Tale" harry learns Regulus took Kreacher back to the cave . His response as he hears the House Elf tell the story:

Harry could visualize them quite clearly, the frightened old elf and the thin, dark Seeker who had so resembled Sirius....Kreacher knew how to open the concealed antrance to the underground cavern, knew how to raise the tiny boat; this time it was his beloved Regulus who sailed with him to the island with its basin of poison....

"And he made you drink the potion?" said Harry, disgusted.

I would suggest Harry's immediate (and incorrect) attribution of this despicable action to Regulus does not originate from any personal knowledge of the man. Hermione, on the other hand, understands more quickly.

And then we have the following scene in "The Battle of Hogwarts". Harry is trying to rescue Draco from the flames in the Room of Rquirement.

And he saw them: Malfoy with his arms around the unconscious Goyle, the pair of them perched on a fragile tower of charred desks, and Harry dived. Malfoy saw him coming and raised one arm. but even as Harry grasped it he knew it was no good: Goyle was too heavy and Malfoy's hand, covered in sweat, slid instantly out of Harry's-

What strikes me as a contrast here is that Harry expresses no surprise that Draco holds on to his friend, and no expectation that of course he would leave him to be safe himself. Regulus and Draco have from what Harry knoew of them at these different points in time, similar stories - boys from Pureblood families, recruited very young, and known to have developed cold feet. (Harry knows this of Regulus from Sirius's comments, he has seen this himself of Draco). It's a change, shown in a couple of sentences, in passing, yet a part of the overall movement that brings us to the dramatic change compared to earlier books in the Epilogue.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?
His life with the Dursley's showed that he, in fact, valued people who valued him. Some people who would have put up with that sort of abuse and neglect wouldnt end up like Harry. Dumbledore says once: "You spent a long time with people who didnt care for you, its truly a miracle that you came out still being able to love like you do." or something to that effect. I think had he grew up with his parents or anyone else, he wouldnt really have valued his friends as much as he did.

2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?
We really see it in Chamber Of Secrets. He feels terrible about the petrified students even though he didnt really know them, and he even goes to risk his neck to save Ginny. The first time i really noticed it was in the first book, when he goes after the Remembrall. He risked expulsion in order to get that back for Neville. It wasnt just trying to show Draco up. I think its one of his strengths. Its part of the reason hes a Gryffindor.

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?
If he wasnt so curious, he may not have been able to figure out what was going on behind the scenes. Its because of curiosity does he try to figure out the Philosopher's Stone, tries to figure out whats lurking in the Chamber, why Sirius Black is after "him", etc. No he doesnt lose it when Dumbledore dies.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
His nerve. He has such nerve! Thats actually a strength! Hes also very determined to finish what he starts. The Sorting Hat: "...and a thirst to prove yourself..." He overcomes the negatives that come with being who he is. Hes constantly being on the short end of the stick because people assume (correctly in some cases) that when stuff goes down, its Harrys fault.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?
His parents: Harry was left all alone yet in the end he isnt alone and never is. Not since that day on the train when he sits next to Ron Weasley and speaks to Hermione Granger.
Sirius: One link to his parents is gone. He learns to move through it and carry on.
Dumbledore: The all-knowing is gone. He must now figure out things for himself and that safety net of wisdom and power has been removed. He must grow stronger to move on without Dumbledore always watching.
Hedwig: Loss of innocence and childhood.
Moody: He realizes even the toughest can go down, so he understands CONSTANT VIGILANCE!
Dobby: Im not certain exactly what Dobby represents to Harry but he is a symbol of Harry's compassion i suppose. That perhaps being kind and compassionate to someone, can lead to that one person doing extraordinary things.
Lupin: The final link to his parents gone.
Snape: Never judge anyone no matter what.
Voldemort: Finally, putting everything behind him and living a full life.

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?
The selfless rescue of Ginny. He could have relied on someone else going down there and getting her but he did it. His freeing Sirius. He could have simply just told everyone Sirius was innocent, but no! He had to go the extra mile and save him! His helping Cedric in the maze and even offering the Cup to him. Cedric does the same for Harry and then they go together. That takes a lot of balls! (Cedric himself is rather selfless.) Going to the aid of Sirius yet again and befriending Luna whom everyone seems to avoid. Many other things i cant remember at the moment.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?
I think he felt he had to. Sometimes one must do something they dont really approve of in order to get out of a situation.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
Because Snape loved his mother and tried his best to protect Harry even though he wasnt very fond of Harry. Part of it has to do with Snape's disgust with Dumbledore during their row: "You have used me! You raise him up and then send him off as a pig for slaughter!" In the end, Harry understood Snape and what he was doing and his bravery.

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?
Yes. Harry has it in his head that he wants to be an auror once fake-Moody says he would make a good one. I cant really think of anything else Harry would do.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now?

I'm totally surprised that he is as well-adjusted as he is after being physically and emotionally abused since infancy.

Would he be the same person if his parents had lived?

Probably not. It's difficult to speculate. Possibly the hardships of living with the Dursley's made him stronger. His parents might have tended to be protective -- maybe even overly so, and Harry might not have had the "intestinal fortitude" it took to vanquish Voldemort.

If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family?

Being "The Boy Who Lived," raising Harry would have been like taking in a member of royalty. I think it would have been difficult on all of them and IMO, it might have had a negative effect on him. Along with the heroworship, there might have been the same tendancy to be overprotective because of all he had been through.

If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?

I don't think he would have ended up like Tom Riddle, but, I don't think he would have been the same as he is. The impersonal atmosphere of the orphanage might have had a very negative influence, and, Harry might not have ended up being the type of friend that he did. He might have been more aloof and less trusting.

2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?

I think we see a touch on the train with Ron and the candy. But, the first real act to me is going after Malfoy when he steals Neville's Rememberall. I think this trait was both a strength and a flaw, and his final sacrifice was a totally unselfish act. I really admired him for that.

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?

I think he was a bit overly curious and had a tendency to take too many chances, and, it turn, to draw his friends into dangerous situations because of their loyalty to him. But, if it wasn't for his curiosity, there wouldn't be any plots for the books, so, it serves him (and us) well.

I think he was stunned after Dumbledore's death, but recovered quickly and was able to carry on.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?

I feel his greatest strength was his loyalty because it inspired loyalty from his friends in return. His weakness was that he often charged into things without thinking them out, therefore putting himself and others in danger. As he got older, he did seem to think things out a bit more and look at both what was to be lost as well as gained by his actions.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?

Losses always define a person. How the loss is handled and if there is a lesson to be learned from it, does the person take advantage of it. I think Harry was a bit reckless when he was young, as we see in POA. Even Lupin chastises him for risking the life his parents sacrified their to give him. But, he seemed to learn as he went along that prices had been paid for him to get where he was, and, he seemed to value those sacrifices and not be quite as reckless.

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?

His deep love for his friends. His selflessness in sacrificing his own life to vanquish Voldemort. His compassion for others.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?

I think he had reached his limit and just decided to "fight fire with fire." Using them on the people he did was not like using them on someone like the Longbottoms.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

I think he finally realized that, for seven years Snape had been helping to protect him. I think he saw why Snape hated his father so much and, knowing a bit about suffering at the hands of bullies, felt a bit of empathy for him. I think knowing that both he and Snape had been used by Dumbledore to carry out his plan and this caused a kind of bond to him for Harry. Most of all, I think Snape's showing Harry the memories that he did not have to show him showed him that, in his own way, Snape had grown to care for Harry.

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?

If vanquishing one of the most powerful evil wizards of all time doesn't make good material for an Auror, I don't know what would. Yes, I think it was a good choice for him because it gave him a chance to use all of what he had learned and to pass that on to others.

I'm not really sure what "revolutionary" changes he might have made.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?
The only thing I think he got out of the Dursley's was not being cocky. Had he had his parents, he obviously would not have been famous, but I think he would have been much more powerful from being around magic as a baby.

2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?
I guess in SS, but I don't really know a specific part other than the troll. But then again we do see him stand up to Malfoy for Neville's Remembrall, which, while it wasn't life or death, shows his courage. I think this is a strength 100%. No sign of a flaw. In the end he saved the world so he obviously did the good job. I think the final sacrifice was odd, from the book stand point, but from Harry I would expect nothing different.

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?
Well it gets him in trouble constantly, just like his dad. Harry is basically a less advanced version of Voldemort when it comes to getting away with things. I mean think about it, he is not very good at not getting caught.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
Bravery and Loyalty, like any good Gryffindor. His biggest weakness by far was not thinking things through and going on his gut feeling. Also, Harry overcame his desire to do things alone, and realized how much he really needed Hermione.(no not Ron)
5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?
What example haven't we seen? lol He gives his life(literally and figuratively) to find the horcruxes, and just throughout the series he is always helping people. He lets Pettigrew live, I know I wouldn't have.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?
Good. I mean after a while you gotta fight back. It's not like he dropped Avada Kedavra on anyone, just a little crucio. Not too bad.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
He died in order to help save his women's son. (No, not Harry. Snape did not care about Harry, just his love for Lily)

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?
For him, of course. Ron not so much. Changes could have been accepting a wider breadth of applicants, not just pure bloods or rich and famous people. Basically choosing on talent.

I really don't understand why people have so little sympathy for him.

I completely understand.He is rude towards anyone he does not like whatever their status and lashes out at even his friends its a surprise he did not end up killing one.He is jealous because someone else for once gets the honors he feels he deserves and Dumbledore even thinks he has to explain why he did not get it which shows he is put on a pedestal he did not deserve to be on anyway.Hermione saves his life and he is angry cause his wand got broken if she had not he would be snake-food.He treats some people who mean him well with contempt up to a point that they almost die for him.
Seeing how often he does not die because he is lucky or cause someone else comes to pull him out of the s....t and cause he ends up killing Voldemort just because of the prophecy no one else could and how badly he handles stress it is just unbelievable he becomes an Auror let alone Head of the office.

I put my reply here cause it would be very off topic in the original thread

I completely understand.He is rude towards anyone he does not like whatever their status and lashes out at even his friends its a surprise he did not end up killing one.He is jealous because someone else for once gets the honors he feels he deserves and Dumbledore even thinks he has to explain why he did not get it which shows he is put on a pedestal he did not deserve to be on anyway.Hermione saves his life and he is angry cause his wand got broken if she had not he would be snake-food.He treats some people who mean him well with contempt up to a point that they almost die for him.
Seeing how often he does not die because he is lucky or cause someone else comes to pull him out of the s....t and cause he ends up killing Voldemort just because of the prophecy no one else could and how badly he handles stress it is just unbelievable he becomes an Auror let alone Head of the office.

I put my reply here cause it would be very off topic in the original thread

Rude to who? If you mean Scrimgeour, he's just defending Dumbledore, unless you agree with Scrimgeour that he should be a Ministry poster boy and walk into the ministry and tell everyone that everything is alright. If you mean Snape, Snape does all he can to provoke him and he holds himself surprisingly well to keep his mouth shut, and you can't blame him for being protective about his father.

He lashes out at his friends because he has gone through a considerable amount, so he keeps his anger well at bay for someone like him. I can only recall him losing control with Ron and Hermione once, and that's in OotP at Grimmauld Place. You can't really blame him for not liking it at the Dursleys and being angry that they got the be at Grimmauld Place while he was stuck at home, with no one even informing him about anything. When Harry's wand broke, he was quite angry because he's human. He didn't show any of his feelings to Hermione, though, and he acted as calm as he could.

Some of his anger was also because parts of Voldemort's soul was trapped inside his body and he was channeling some of his emotions.

I don't find it unbelievable at all that he became an Auror. He was always quite talented at DADA and received Outstanding on his OWL's, which Hermione didn't even do. He led a couple of students he trained in DA to the Department of Mysteries and they fought a bunch of Death Eaters. I think his talent for DADA is quite evident.

Rude to who? If you mean Scrimgeour, he's just defending Dumbledore, unless you agree with Scrimgeour that he should be a Ministry poster boy and walk into the ministry and tell everyone that everything is alright. If you mean Snape, Snape does all he can to provoke him and he holds himself surprisingly well to keep his mouth shut, and you can't blame him for being protective about his father.

He lashes out at his friends because he has gone through a considerable amount, so he keeps his anger well at bay for someone like him. I can only recall him losing control with Ron and Hermione once, and that's in OotP at Grimmauld Place. You can't really blame him for not liking it at the Dursleys and being angry that they got the be at Grimmauld Place while he was stuck at home, with no one even informing him about anything. When Harry's wand broke, he was quite angry because he's human. He didn't show any of his feelings to Hermione, though, and he acted as calm as he could.

They told him what Dumbledore had said to them and he still kept nagging.
After McGonnagal had warned him he should have kept his mouth shut to Umbidge.



I don't find it unbelievable at all that he became an Auror. He was always quite talented at DADA and received Outstanding on his OWL's, which Hermione didn't even do. He led a couple of students he trained in DA to the Department of Mysteries and they fought a bunch of Death Eaters. I think his talent for DADA is quite evident.

I see Aurors like cops or secret agents they need to be smart and have a cool head not get stressed.
He is a barrel full of anger and stress is good at shooting spells but does not see when he is being tricked into something.He would have been dead at 11 if not for others.

They told him what Dumbledore had said to them and he still kept nagging.
After McGonnagal had warned him he should have kept his mouth shut to Umbidge.

I see Aurors like cops or secret agents they need to be smart and have a cool head not get stressed.
He is a barrel full of anger and stress is good at shooting spells but does not see when he is being tricked into something.He would have been dead at 11 if not for others.

Umbridge's insistance that he made up everything was a touchy spot for Harry, but he certainly wasn't the only one who spoke up. Hermione was the first to, and we can't exactly say she doesn't have self-control.

Harry seems like a very smart person, and he manages to keep his head cool enough to devise plans and make decisions in the most dangerous situations. And perhaps Harry has changed since he was 11.

I completely understand.He is rude towards anyone he does not like whatever their status and lashes out at even his friends its a surprise he did not end up killing one.He is jealous because someone else for once gets the honors he feels he deserves and Dumbledore even thinks he has to explain why he did not get it which shows he is put on a pedestal he did not deserve to be on anyway.Hermione saves his life and he is angry cause his wand got broken if she had not he would be snake-food.He treats some people who mean him well with contempt up to a point that they almost die for him.
Seeing how often he does not die because he is lucky or cause someone else comes to pull him out of the s....t and cause he ends up killing Voldemort just because of the prophecy no one else could and how badly he handles stress it is just unbelievable he becomes an Auror let alone Head of the office.

I put my reply here cause it would be very off topic in the original thread

I agree. Although when I think aout how cops are in real life I can completely see him becoming an Auror. But at least he realizes how wrong he acts most of the time (concerning his friends anyway). I think he just has no way to deal with stress so he lashes out at people who love him (and will forgive him). That is why I sometimes appreciate when Draco one ups him, it knocks him back down to earth. But I like to think that once this business with Voldemort was over, he was able to control himself.

But I like to think that once this business with Voldemort was over, he was able to control himself.

I hope so cause even if Voldemort was the Dark Lord its not as if he invented dark magic it had been around much longer and probably would be used again.

I agree. Although when I think aout how cops are in real life I can completely see him becoming an Auror.

I guess that is not a compliment for the cops grins

I have to say I know some people are defensive about Harry and I know that many find him rather endearing but I find similar problems with him to those Nandi outlined. I know he has a lot to deal with but I still find his anger and general aggressive demeanour off putting to say the least – had there not been some other interesting characters I probably wouldn’t have finished the series :sigh:

I completely understand.He is rude towards anyone he does not like whatever their status

Most teenagers are rude to those they do not like. I don't know what you mean by "their status" as there are plenty of adults Harry tries to be polite to despite how much he does not like them.


and lashes out at even his friends its a surprise he did not end up killing one.

Really? Harry could barely bring himself to kill Voldemort. It surprises you that he didn't kill his friends?

He is jealous because someone else for once gets the honors he feels he deserves and Dumbledore even thinks he has to explain why he did not get it which shows he is put on a pedestal he did not deserve to be on anyway.

Right, arrogance and self-centeredness are definitely two of Harry's character flaws. So what? No character in Harry Potter is perfect, including Harry himself. That's part of what makes it such a great series.

I'd rather have a flawed protagonist with an actual personality than one that is perfect and has no emotional reactions to anything. Harry is a human being, not a robot. It is only natural that he is going to feel upset and frustrated at times, considering he is dealing with things as a tween and a teenager that most wizards don't deal with in a lifetime. It would be completely unrealistic IMO for Harry to be perfectly calm and collected given his circumstances.

.Hermione saves his life and he is angry cause his wand got broken if she had not he would be snake-food.He treats some people who mean him well with contempt up to a point that they almost die for him.
Seeing how often he does not die because he is lucky or cause someone else comes to pull him out of the s....t and cause he ends up killing Voldemort just because of the prophecy no one else could and how badly he handles stress it is just unbelievable he becomes an Auror let alone Head of the office.

I put my reply here cause it would be very off topic in the original thread

I'm gonna have to defend Harry in this one situation with Harry, because I can completely relate to it. WHen I find out someone breaks something of mine, even if that person had just helped me, my first reaction is anger. As someone already said, he got angry because he is human.

You also have to consider the circumstances he's in. He just saw his parents being murdered (through Voldemort's mine), he's tired, and his scar is hurting. He also controls his anger, and does accept that Hermione just saved him. He doesn't show his anger at all, and is mature enough to overcome it and realize how Hermione saved them. So, he was angry, yes, but it was compleely human and he controlled it and was mature enough to appreaciate Hermione for what she had just done.

I think you're exaggerating. Harry is only mean/rude to people who are the same way back, except for a few instances in OoTP (more specifically when he lets out all his anger on Ron and Hermione n Grimmauld Place). He is a bit rude here and there to Ron and Hermione throughout the book. The instance that comes to mind is when he tells Ron and Hermione off for aways arguing. And come on, he's really stressed, plenty of people think he's a liar, and to top it all off, his two best friends are constantly bickering. I don't blame him for blowing off a little steam at them because of it.

I'm gonna have to defend Harry in this one situation with Harry, because I can completely relate to it. WHen I find out someone breaks something of mine, even if that person had just helped me, my first reaction is anger. As someone already said, he got angry because he is human.

We all have to deal with that sort of human's in our normal life and try to escape from it among other ways by reading exiting books.To read about the same kind of people you try to avoid in r/t is annoying.I don't mind a flawless characyter in books as the normal world is full of the flawed characters and to read about someone elses fights that really don't matter is tiresome.

Our Trio fight more among themselves then against the opponents. Seems more like a soap-opera to me then a fantasy novel series. I would not mind if Harry had been above that kind of childish behaviour. I wish instead of appologizing for not making him a prefect Dumbledore had told him to stop behave like a spoiled brat.

We all have to deal with that sort of human's in our normal life and try to escape from it among other ways by reading exiting books.To read about the same kind of people you try to avoid in r/t is annoying.

That's a bit irrelevant. Most of us appreaciate the depth and complexity of the characters, and how the story of Harry Potter conveys real human emotions. I don't read the Harry Potter books for an "escape" most of the time. I read them because I like the series.

and to read about someone elses fights that really don't matter is tiresome..

But the whole series is about someone else's conflicts. That's what pretty much all books/films are about.

Our Trio fight more among themselves then against the opponents. Seems more like a soap-opera to me then a fantasy novel series. I would not mind if Harry had been above that kind of childish behaviour. I wish instead of appologizing for not making him a prefect
Dumbledore had told him to stop behave like a spoiled brat.

In the Godrics Hollow scene that we were talking about, Harry doesn't even fight ith Hermione at all. He doesn't voice his anger in the slightest. In fact, I don't see one mentionof the fact that he's angry. In the book, he just appears to be sad and shocked about what happened to his wand.

I will partly agree on the Prefect situation. It was a bit ridiculous that Harry was so upset over becoming Prefect. But, we all get a bit jealous over ridiculous things sometimes, don't we? Being jealous that someone got something you didn't is perfectly natural, and happens to the best of us. His jealousy hardly even lasts that long. After that chapter, he resolves to top sulking about Ron getting prefect, and accepts that Ron got something he didn't. The conflict is not brought up again until the end of the book, when Dumbledore mentions it.

I feel the fact that Dumbledore mentioning it isn't so much Dumbledore's judgement of Harry's character, but rather JKR's way to tie up tht lose end which she definitely would have been questioned about in interviews.

And BTW, this is my 100th post! I'm a second year now! :D